Reserve Storage 
Collection 




Class 

Book 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



THE 



Era of Frauds 



Methodist Book Concern 



AT NEW YORK 



JOHN LANAHAN, D. D. 

'/ 



1896 

Methodist Book Depository 

118 E. Baltimore St. 

Baltimore, Md. 



/*•«- 






Copyright, : 



DEDICATION. 

The fathers of Methodism by whose toils and 
sacrifices the Book Concern was founded, adopted 
the following, which has remained the law of the 
Church to the present : 

"the profits arising from the Book Con- 
cern, AFTER A SUFFICIENT CAPITAL TO CARRY 
ON THE BUSINESS IS RETAINED, SHALL BE REGU- 
LARLY APPLIED TO THE RELIEF OF TRAVELING, 
SUPERNUMERARY AND SUPERANNUATED MINISTERS, 
THEIR WIVES, WIDOWS AND CHILDREN." 

I dedicate this narrative to the above worthy 
servants of the Church, who were long deprived 
of what belonged to them, by mismanagement 
and frauds. 



"I HEARD THE DEFAMING OF MANY, 
FEAR ON EVERY SIDE. REPORT, SAY 
THEY, AND WE WILL REPORT IT, ALL 
MY FAMILIARS WATCHED FOR MY HALTING, 
SAYING, PERADVENTURE HE WILL BE EN- 
TICED, AND WE SHALL PREVAIL AGAINST 
HIM, AND WE SHALL TAKE OUR REVENGE 
ON HIM." — JEREMIAH, CHAP. 20, 10. 



PREFACE. 



No one can regret an era of fraud in the 
Methodist Book Concern at New York, that has 
led to the writing of these pages, more than I 
do, and in the writing of them I trust I am 
perfectly free from the spirit of vindictiveness ; 
indeed if I thought that was the spirit prompt- 
ing me, I would consign the manuscript to the 
flames rather than to the publishers. 

But for more than thirty years I had stood 
in the pulpit of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
preaching the Gospel of Christ and telling men 
how to live — I had been a man of strictly one 
work — the work assigned me by the Church, 
and wherever and whatever that work has been 
I did it to the extent of my ability, feeling that 
it was due to my profession as a minister of 
Christ and to the Church to which, under God, 
I was indebted for all I am and all I hope for 
in time and in eternity. I do not know that 
ever during those thirty-odd years a word was 
breathed by any one against my moral and 
Christian character. 

There came a time, however, when I was 
assailed as a slanderer of honest people. I was 



twice suspended from my official position in the 
Church and thrown into jail on the charge of 
maligning Christian gentlemen. Four, at least, 
of the official papers of the Church with a circu- 
lation of nearly a hundred thousand, almost 
every week for two years held me up to pub- 
lic reproach, and the Church at large to this 
day does not know whether there was not some 
ground for the charges instituted against me 
and the abuse heaped upon me. Ever since im- 
putations have been cast upon me, in some in- 
stances by high officials, tending to destroy con- 
fidence in my integrity, of which the following 
by the late Rev. W. L. Harris, in a biographical 
sketch of my successor in the Agency, Rev. R. 
Nelson, in the Quarterly Review, of October, 
1879, is a specimen: 

He succeeded to his agency in troublous times. The 
Book Concern had just passed through a most trying 
ordeal. Its former management had been fearfully assailed 
and maligned, not only in private circles, both within and 
without the Church, and in the public prints throughout 
the country and in foreign lands, thus begetting great 
hesitancy and distrust everywhere in relation to its affairs. 
Although the results of the most careful and exhaustive 
scrutiny that could be made by competent and skilled 
accountants signally failed to justify or even excuse the 
slightest suspicion of the honesty of its Agents, or the 
solvency of the institution, yet the vigorous and persistent 
assaults upon both, strongly tended to overthrow its credit 
and destroy its usefulness. 

It is no relief to me that the malice and hos- 
tility alleged against the Book Concern are, in 



the above statement, so to say, impersonal, or 
that this great wrong is not by name ascribed to 
me; for, though the putting of the charge implies 
that assailants and maligners were nnmerons, 
it is known to the whole M. E. Chnrch, and to 
multitudes beyond its pale, that I alone am 
held responsible — a responsibility I have never 
sought to evade — for the charges against the 
management of the Book Concern, as I found it 
soon after I entered upon my duties as one of 
the Agents, in obedience to the appointment of 
the General Conference of 1868. Though ap- 
parently general, the charge points in one direc- 
tion only. The head and front of that offending 
was myself. The arraignment is, therefore, of 
me. The severe condemnation launched against 
assailants and maligners, will, wherever the 
paper is read, fall on me alone. Thus I was 
publicly accused, no less really than if by name, 
of a heinous crime, and that by one of the offi- 
cials of the Church to which I belonged, and, in 
the pages of that one of its periodicals in which 
its weightiest utterances are wont to have ex- 
pression, and what is most unseemly, interjected 
into a eulogy of the dead. 

Eight years after my Agency in the Book Con- 
cern had ended, I was a delegate to the General 
Conference at Cincinnati, Ohio. On an occasion 
when I was participating in the business before 
the Conference, a visiting clergyman inquired 



of my friend, Rev. Dr. K. P. Jervis, who was 
also a delegate, for niy name. When informed, 
he exclaimed, "Why, no persons here respect 
him, do they?" In a pleasant way, Dr. Jervis 
gave me the particulars the same day. No 
doubt the stranger supposed he had good rea- 
sons for the remark. He had, perhaps, gotten 
his estimate of me from the Christian Advocate, 
and the report of the Book Committee. I have 
no doubt there are many throughout the Church 
like-minded; others who believe there were 
wrongs in the Concern that needed correction, 
are of the opinion that the correction could and 
should have been made by the Agents without 
much publicity and controversy. Such opinions 
are entirely natural and reasonable in minds 
that know little or nothing about the facts. I 
am entirely willing to abide the judgment of all 
such after they shall have examined the facts 
of this narrative, which is but a meagre state- 
ment of the whole case. 

Only at the last General Conference, Dr. C. C. 
McCabe, in a speech on the floor of that body, 
declared that "the Church never lost a dollar 
by one of its Agents," which could be interpreted 
in no other way than as confirmatory of the 
charges under which I was misrepresented by 
the official press, suspended, and imprisoned. 

For the sake of my Christian name, and for 
the sake of my children and my children's chil- 



PREFACE. 



dren, ought I not, before death shall seal my 
lips, lift this cloud that has hung oyer me for 
more than twenty years? 

But the reason for writing these pages is not 
merely personal. In my judgment no funds are 
so sacred as those contributed in the name of 
Christian charity, contributed in some instances 
by poor people who can ill afford to give of 
their substance. We believe God continually 
watches over all such gifts, and if men trifle 
with them, or misappropriate them, they do so 
at their peril. 

I trust the reader will discover in almost every 
page of this narrative an effort to show that a 
misuse of the funds of the Church of Christ is 
attended with disastrous consequences to those 
who are guilty; that they shall not long enjoy 
their ill-gotten gains, and that sooner or later all 
such crimes shall be published as upon the 
house-top. Of such wrong-doers, and of those 
who through sympathy, or otherwise, help to 
cover the wrongs, it may be truly said: "Be 
sure your sin will find you out." If henceforth 
charitable funds, especially in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, are not guarded with greater 
care, if the hand of the thief when stretched out 
to make unlawful use of them is not more likely 
to be paralyzed, then one of the principal pur- 
poses the author of this narrative has ha<J in 
mind when writing it, will fail of its accom- 



plishment. But I am sure tliat those who are 
disposed to give to the great philanthropies of 
our Church can do so with greater confidence 
by reason of these exposures, and that a wiser 
and more faithful distribution of what is given 
will be made than ever before in the history of 
Methodism. 

It is proper to say, that when the broad, em- 
phatic averment was made at the last General 
Conference, that the Church had "never lost a 
dollar by one of its Agents," I determined to 
challenge it, and more than anything else it has 
led to this publication, especially as the speaker 
had been making similar and much more sweep- 
ing declarations during preceding years. At my 
request, the General Conference unanimously 
ordered that I have access to the records of 
the Book Committee. Upon application to the 
Agents at New York, Messrs. Hunt and Eaton, 
I was surprised to learn that "after a careful 
and thorough search the records could not be 
found." Whereupon I published the following 
advertisement in the Christian Advocate of 
June 28, 1894: 

LOST OR STOLEN— $100 REWARD. 

The last General Conference unanimously adopted the 
following resolution: "Whereas, The Rev. J. Lanahan de- 
sires to examine the records of the Book Committee ap- 
pointed in 1868; therefore, Resolved, That such permission 
be granted him." 



PREFACE. xiii 

Upon application to the Book Agents at New York, 
Messrs. Hunt & Eaton, they wrote me: "We have made 
the most thorough search, the second time, in every part 
of the building, and have not been able to find the records 
of the Book Committee at the time of your trial." 

I will pay the above reward for the recovery of said 
records, or for information that may lead to their recovery. 

JOHN LANAHAN, 

June 11, 1894. 118 E. Baltimore St., Baltimore, Md. 

Fortunately, I had copied a large part of these 
records, and had kept notes of the proceedings 
and doings of the Committee and other events 
from day to day, all of which have been care- 
fully preserved. I have therefore been able to 
furnish in a substantial and reliable form the 
necessary facts, and for their correctness I shall 
be ready and willing at any time to answer 
before any ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. 

If the approaching General Conference shall 
order an examination, I care not by whom, 
nor by how many, I shall claim but one thing — 
namely, to be represented in person and by one 
accountant of my own choosing. If this is 
granted, and I do not demonstrate the truth 
of my charges, the Church will be justified in 
doing what the majority of the Book Committee 
and a part of the official press planned and 
labored to do: Make my name the synonym of 
infamy and hang my character on the gibbet of 
Methodist history. 

As showing how such matters as are given 



Xiv TREFACE. 

in this narrative were dealt with by a sister 
church, I ask attention to the following: Only 
a few months ago the New York papers an- 
nounced that frauds had been discovered in the 
"American Missionary Society," of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church, in that city. All allu- 
sion to it so soon disappeared from the secular 
press, that I was induced to write to one of the 
newly elected officers of the Society for informa- 
tion as to the facts, and he promptly responded 
in the following, dated April 9th, 1895: 

For some years there had been no audit of the Society's 
accounts in bank with vouchers. The Secretary had been 
in charge for years. The Treasurer— unsalaried— was a 
man of business reputation. The financial exhibits seemed 
all right, the trouble was, that the balances had not been 
verified. It was taken for granted that they were all right. 
For some time, however, there had been an uneasy feeling 
that there was something wrong. Finally, it came to light 
that the Society's note for $2,000 had been discounted at a 
bank where the Society ought to have had a large balance. 
An investigation was ordered, and it was found that the 
Treasurer had taken nearly $22,000. He promptly made 
restitution and resigned. During the investigation, the ex- 
pert who was working on the books noticed great dis- 
crepancies in the Society's accounts. The Secretary had 
been in office since 1869. The result of the investigation 
showed that he had taken from the Society nearly $19,000. 
He began overdrawing his salary about 1883, now and 
then taking as personal, donations sent to the Society. 

It is the same old story of taking things 
for granted. No examination, no auditing with 
vouchers, — bank books and exhibits supposed to 
be all right. "For some time, however, there 



was an uneasy feeling that there was something 
wrong." Had that uneasy feeling been voiced in 
a demand for investigation, perhaps some over- 
sensitive people would have complained that it 
was a reflection upon the good name of long- 
trusted servants of the Church. Finally, that 
irrevocable law, " Be sure your sin will find you 
out," brought the long delayed explosion. The 
newspapers called for the facts. The Church 
authorities did their duty and gave them. The 
defrauders were not allowed to prevent exami- 
nation, nor did a committee plead that expos- 
ure would injure the Church. The offenders 
were expelled from office. The clergyman was 
promptly deposed from the Christian ministry, 
and the agitation was a thing of a day. Last, 
not least, the man who unearthed the frauds was 
not made a victim of persecution, nor was an 
attempt made to conceal the frauds by destroy- 
ing his good name, as was attempted in my case, 
by officials in the Church that I faithfully had 
served my life long. 

Laymen of the Methodist Episcopal Church — 
than whom a more liberal and devoted people 
cannot be found in Christendom, — may I not 
appeal to you to follow the example cited 
above, and compel an honest examination of my 
charges? None but the guilty need fear the 
whole truth. It is pleaded that this is " a dead 
issue " because some of the parties are dead. The 



xvi PBEFACE. 

Church is not dead, the honor of her publishing 
house is not dead, public opinion is not dead, 
the false reports of the Book Committee and 
J. P. Kilbreth are not dead, but are in the Jour- 
nal of the highest council of the Church, to be 
used when I am dead, and when the facts of 
this deplorable controversy are made a part of 
the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Page. 

I. Appointment — Entrance on duty — 
Investigation and its Results, ... 1 
II. Bindery — Investigation and its Re- 
sults, 29 

1. Hoffman's salary, 30 

III. Another Class of Frauds, .... 43 

1. Frauds in leather, ... . . 44 

2. Frauds in binders' cloth and in 
wages, .59 

3. Frauds in inventories, .... 60 

4. Report of sub-committee, ... 68 

IV. From Privacy to Publicity, ... 74 
V. First meeting of Book Committee, . 79 

VI. Second meeting of Book Committee, 94 

VII. Third meeting of Book Committee, . 122 

VI [I. Fourth meeting of Book Committee, 131 

1. The trial commenced, .... 138 

2. Charges and answers, .... 142 

3. Letter of Gen. Rusling, . . . 171 

4. New York Observer, editorial, . 171 
IX. Conspiracy against Episcopacy, . . 174 

X. Bishop Scott Sub-Committee, . . .178 
XI. Dr. Carlton's Accountants, .... 183 



xviii CONTENTS. 

Page. 

XII. Report of Mr. John A. Guan, ... 195 

XIII. Report of E. H. Gouge, 217 

XIV. Suppressed Report of an Accountant, 
made several years before I became 
one of the Agents, 222 

XV. Accounts and Financial Methods, . 231 
1. The periodical account, . . . 233 

XVI. Suit for Slander, 250 

XVII. Fifth meeting of Book Committee, . 253 

1. Decision of Bishop Janes, . . 258 

2. Decision of Bishop Ames, . . 262 

3. General Conference of 1872, . . 265 
XVIII. Outcome of the suit of Goodenough, 269 

XIX. Conclusion, 279 

APPENDICES. 

I. Specimen of Fraudulent Transac- 
tions, 282 

II. Action of the Baltimore Conference, 
and Dr. Slicer's Account of the Con- 
duct of the Book Committee, . . . 293 
III. A Question Answered, 303 



APPOINTMENT — ENTBANCE ON DUTY— 
INVESTIGATION AND ITS KESULTS. 

TJie General Conference of 1868 convened in 
Chicago the first day of May. Among the busi- 
ness to be transacted was the election of an 
Agent, and an Assistant Agent, and a Book Com- 
mittee to supervise the publishing interests of 
the Church, in the Book Concern, at New York. 

The discipline of that date prescribed the du- 
ties and prerogatives of the Agents and Book 
Committee in these words: "The Agents shall 
have authority to regulate the publications and 
all other parts of the Concern. It shall be their 
duty to send an exhibit of the state of the Book 
Concern at New York, to each session of the An- 
nual Conference, and a report quadrennially, to 
the General Conference." 

"The Book Committee shall consist of fifteen 
traveling ministers to be chosen by the General 
Conference. ... It shall be the duty of the 
Committee to examine into the condition of the 
publishing interests of the Church, to inspect the 
accounts of the agents, make a report thereof 
yearly to all the Annual Conferences and to the 
General Conference. They shall also attend to 
such matters as may be referred to them by the 
Editors or Agents for their action or counsel. 



2 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

And they shall have power to suspend an Editor 
or Agent from his official relation as such, if they 
judge it necessary for the interests of the Church 
and the Concern. And a time shall be fixed, at 
as early a date as practicable, for the investiga- 
tion of the official conduct of said Editor or 
Agent, at which two or more of the Bishops shall 
be requested to attend, and by the concurrence of 
the Bishops present, and of a majority of the 
Committee, he may be removed from office in the 
interval of the General Conference." 

The following persons were elected Book Com- 
mittee : 

District I. James Pike, New Hampshire Conference. 

II. G. W. Woodruff, New York East " 

III. C. S. Vancleve, Newark 

IV. Henry Slicer, Baltimore 
V. I. S. Bingham, Black River " 

VI. James Erwin, Central New York l< 

VII. G. W. Maltby, Erie 

; VIII. J. F. Kennedy, North Ohio " 

IX. B. F. Rawlins, Indiana " 

X. F. A. Blades, Detroit " 

XI. H. Bannister, Wisconsin " 

XII. Cyrus Brooks, Minnesota 

1 XIII. L. M. Vernon, St. Louis " 

XIV. J. H. Moore, Illinois 

XV. J. RoTnwEiLER, Central German " 

During the session of the General Conference 
I was frequently solicited to allow my name to 
be used for the senior agency at New York. I 
invariably refused, and stated that it was my 
purpose and that of my colleagues from Balti- 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 3 

more Conference to yote for the re-election of 
Dr. Thomas Carlton, who had filled the office 
sixteen years. He was re-elected. When, with 
several others, I was nominated for Assistant 
Agent, I immediately stated that it was done 
without authority; that I was not a candidate 
and did not desire an election to any office. Much 
to my surprise, however, I was elected. 

I entered on duty, at New York, early in the 
month of June, and was cordially received by 
my associate, Dr. Thomas Carlton and all the 
employees of the house. Nothing was said to me 
about the methods and details of the business, or 
my particular duties, beyond the general state- 
ment that I was expected to give special atten- 
tion to the manufacturing departments, as my 
predecessor, Rev. Dr. James Porter, had done. 
Casually meeting Dr. Porter, I remarked that I 
should be obliged to him for any suggestions in 
regard to my particular duties. He replied that 
he would "answer any questions," and added, 
"I never have used one dollar of the money of 
the Book Concern." The remark surprised me, 
but I asked no questions. In different conversa- 
tions with Dr. Daniel Wise, Editor of the Sun- 
day School Department, and Dr. Daniel Curry, 
Editor of the Christian Advocate, they frequently 
suggested that I give special attention to the pur- 
chase of paper. After a while I was impressed 
with the idea that they had especial reasons for 
such suggestions. 

Having learned that the head of the printing, 



4 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

mid also the head of tlie bindery department 
did all the purchasing of the material used by 
them, I was led in the latter part of July to 
question the superintendent of printing about 
the purchase of paper. His manner and an- 
swers impressed me unfavorably. Being unac- 
quainted with the details of such matters, I de- 
termined before making further inquiry, to take 
at least six months to make myself thoroughly 
familiar with the workings of the Concern. I 
may state, however, that my first inquiry of 
Mr. S. J. Goodenough, in regard to the pur- 
chase of paper, was made in July, 1868, and 
that for some reason, there was an immediate 
change in his manner of making purchases. 

Sometime in the fall of 1868, Mr. W. D. Wil- 
son, a dealer in ink, called on me and stated that 
in the previous year he had agreed with Messrs. 
Carlton and Porter to purchase $300.00 worth 
of books as a present to the Pacific St. Sunday 
School, Brooklyn, of which Kev. Dr. Thomas 
Sewell was pastor, payment for which was to 
be made in ink of his manufacture; that a large 
part of it had been delivered and used, but some 
of it had been returned as unfit for use with 
notice from Mr. Goodenough that he would re- 
ceive no more from him, and that though he 
had made several efforts, he could get no satis- 
factory explanation. He also stated that sev- 
eral large houses in New York used his ink, 
among them the Harper Bros. I inquired of 
that firm and they informed me that they used 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 5 

Wilson's ink on their Magazine, Weekly, Bazar 
and like publications, with entire satisfaction. 
In another interview with Mr. G-ood enough, I 
stated that if the above house used Wilson's ink 
on such publications, it ought to be good enough 
for our children's papers, and requested him to 
order a small quantity for another trial. This 
was done, and after a few days, it was condemned 
and complaint came to the Agents that the 
ink "set off," and blacked the hands of those 
who handled the papers. Mr. Wilson then sent 
as a test, not stating the quality, some of Palmer's 
English Ink — the best in the market — which he 
sold at $5.00 per pound. That also was con- 
demned as unsuitable. 

While this matter was pending the man who 
had been furnishing us with ink at $1.00 per 
pound, called on me and said he would sell Us 
ink as cheaply as any other dealer, and volun- 
teered to deduct ten per cent, from the bill then 
due him, which was $1,345.00. He also offered 
to give $500.00 towards our new building on 
Broadway, or to the Missionary Society, as I 
might choose. I declined both his offers, and 
began to express my apprehension of wrong-do- 
ing in the purchase of ink. He looked troubled, 
left the office promising to call again, which he 
never did. 

Finding myself circumvented at every point, 
I abandoned, for the time, the further pursuit 
of the matter, believing, however, that we were 
paying $1.00 j)er pound for a quality of ink 



6 APPOINTMENT— ENTEANCE OX DUTY, ETC. 

which could be purchased for twenty-five cents 
per pound. It should be borne in mind that 
Goodenough did all the purchasing for the 
printing department without the slightest over- 
sight by the Agents, and all bills and monthly 
statements, if simply marked with his initials, 
were paid by the cashier without examination, 
there being at the time no entry clerk to make 
a record of the goods received, His purchases 
of paper alone averaged largely more than 
|100,000 per year. He also paid all the wages 
of his department every two weeks, drawing 
from the cashier the amount named by himself 
upon an order in these words : " Due for wages 
in Printing Department, $ S. J. G." 

The wages averaged about f 1800.00 every pay- 
day. 

Goodenough's conduct in the matter of the 
ink, caused me to be apprehensive that there 
might be wrong-doing in matters of much great- 
er magnitude, and I therefore determined to 
make a thorough examination into his depart- 
ment, especially the purchase of paper. I re- 
quested the book-keeper to show me some of the 
vouchers for paper purchased. He said he had 
none; that Mr. Goodenough kept them, and that 
lie made entries in the account books from 
"Monthly Statements." I named this to Dr. 
Carlton, who replied: "That is all right, Mr. 
Goodenough keeps the vouchers." I expressed 
surprise that the man who purchased, received, 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 7 

and directed the use of the paper, should be al- 
lowed to retain the only proper vouchers, and 
the house pay on monthly statements. Dr. Carl- 
ton insisted that it was all right. 

The first regular meeting of the Book Commit- 
tee, appointed by the General Conference of 
1868, was held the next succeeding February, 
when a standing sub-committee was appointed, 
Bev. Jas. Pike, chairman. At one of its sessions, 
questions were asked by the committee in regard 
to the management of the Book Concern. Dr. 
Carlton replied : " We have a perfect system of 
checks and balances, so that nothing can go 
wrong without the knowledge of the Agents." I 
remarked that I did not think the checks and 
balances as good as he seemed to. The commit- 
tee gave no attention to my remark, and I did 
not particularize. I was so anxious to induce 
the committee to question me about the methods 
of business, that I asked whether in their judg- 
ment, I had the right by my own act to discharge 
an employee. My reasons for the question were 
not asked, but in an informal way they indi- 
cated that I could not do it without the consent 
of the Senior Agent. He did not speak. There 
were no outside persons present at this meeting, 
but a few days after a manufacturer of paper 
told me that Mr. J. F. Porter said to him, "I 
have an open field in the Book Concern; the 
committee decided that Lanahan is a subordi- 
nate, and has no power." 

The committee expressed the opinion that 



S APPOINTMENT-: ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

it would be well for one of the agents to live 
in the city so as to be convenient to the Con- 
cern in case of an emergency, and proposed to 
add $500 to the salary, which was $4,500.00, 
in view of the increased cost of house rent. 
I expressed a willingness to do so, but stated 
that I would not consent to receive a larger 
salary than the other General Conference offi- 
cers, all of whom lived out of the city. They 
pressed the matter upon me, and I finally 
stated that if the increase was allowed I posi- 
tively would not draw the money and thus be 
made invidious. Many times I have had cause 
to be thankful that I so determined. If I had 
allowed it, strange stories might have been pro- 
claimed throughput the Church. I paid $1800 
for a very plain house not far from the Book 
Concern. I could have rented as good for $500 
in one of the adjacent towns. 

After the adjournment of the committee, I 
reminded Dr. Carlton of what he had said, and 
again expressed my disapproval of the Superin- 
tendent keeping the only proper vouchers of pur- 
chases of paper that amounted to so large a sum 
of money, but my protest availed nothing. 

As evidence that this and another strange 
practice was of long standing, and one not ap- 
proved by a former committee, I cite the follow- 
ing from the records of that committee, dated 
February 28th, 1862. "The Committee sug- 
gest that if the reception of money was more 
exclusively in the hands of the cashier, an ad- 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETU. 9 

vantage might be gained. And it is also sug- 
gested that the vouchers for money paid in the 
printing and bindery departments, should be 
placed in the hands of the Agents, and not re- 
tained by the heads of the former. 

CHARLES B. TIPPET, 
S. Y. MOISTROE." 

The above shows that the practice of allowing 
the two heads of the printing and bindery de- 
partments to retain the only proper vouchers 
was of long standing; not only so, but that the 
"reception of money " was not "exclusively 
placed in the hands of the cashier." I suppose 
the committee of that quadrennium thought a 
mere " suggestion " was all that was needed to 
correct such glaring improprieties, but no change 
was made in the existing methods. 

Having had about ten months' experience and 
observation in the Book Concern, I thought 
proper to ask Mr. Goodenough for the vouchers 
for paper purchased for one year. Instead of 
the vouchers he sent two " Order Books," which 
contained only the stubs of the orders he had 
sent out, with the following note: 

Methodist Book Concern, April 22, 18G9. 
Dr. Lanahan: 

I called at your desk two or three times to answer your 
question in person, but found you engaged elsewhere. These 
books contain all the orders for stock within the time 
named. I have not made contracts with parties, but have 
made orders from time to time, taking advantage of the 
market as to prices, and not confining orders to any one, 



10 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

unless it proved of advantage to the House. In a falling 
market contracts are annoying. I shall be glad to explain 
anything you may not quite understand. 1 am confident 
that we have bought at the lowest market rates, and not 
infrequently below the market. 

Yours, etc., S. J. GOODENOUGH. 



I returned the order books, and requested Mm 
to send me the original bills for one year, which 
he did. These bills showed that all the paper 
for the year had been purchased of the following 
persons: S. D. Warren, Boston; Campbell, Hall 
& Co., New York; J. F. Porter, a son of my pre- 
decessor, Dr. James Porter. 

On examination of one of Porter's vouchers, 
dated April 30th, 1868, it showed that he had 
charged the Concern $13.50 per ream for a 
certain lot of paper. The books of the firm from 
which he purchased it, and his own subsequent 
admission, proved that he had bought it the day 
before for $10.80 per ream, thus realizing a 
profit for himself of more than twenty-five per 
cent. Until Porter obtained control of the pur- 
chases, this firm had sold the Concern direct, 
and I was assured by them that they would 
have much preferred to sell to the Concern as 
low as to Porter, if its proper representative had 
called upon them. 

This unexpected development was so contrary 
to Goodenough's statement in his note that I de- 
termined to make a still more thorough exami- 
nation of the purchases of paper. I first called 
upon the New York firm above alluded to, and 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 11 

they informed me that for several years all or- 
ders from the Concern came throngh J. F. Porter, 
who claimed to have entire control of the pur- 
chasing for the Book Rooms, and that they conld 
get no orders except as they paid Porter a per- 
centage, or commission, which percentage, by 
his direction, was added to the price they would 
have sold to the Concern if its proper represen- 
tative had delivered the orders. They said fur- 
ther, that it was an unusual way of doing busi- 
ness, but that they had submitted to it because 
it was understood by the trade generally, that no 
paper could be sold to the Methodist Book Con- 
cern except through Porter, and upon such con- 
ditions as he dictated. The orders delivered by 
Porter were in the name of the Book Concern, 
and signed by Goodenough, the bills being made 
out to the house, and not to Porter. This firm's 
place of business was, and is yet, within ten 
minutes' walk of the Book Concern, yet Goode- 
nough had been there but twice in four years, 
and then merely to inquire about certain grades 
of paper, the orders for which were subsequently 
delivered by Porter, and upon these also, he re- 
ceived a percentage, which was added to the 
price, all of which the Book Concern paid. 

A day or two after I had made these discov- 
eries, I told Mr. Goodenough that in my exami- 
nation of the paper purchases, I had found that 
the facts were in conflict with the statements 
contained in his note. He said he would like to 
see it proved, and again assured me that he fre- 



12 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

quently canvassed the market, and he was con- 
fident that he often purchased below the market 
price. I asked him if he purchased directly from 
the manufacturers. He replied that he did. 
Determined to prevent the possibility of being 
misunderstood, I said, " What I mean is this : do 
you purchase directly from the persons whose 
bills we pay?" He assured me that he did. I 
then said, "Is there any third person between 
you and the dealers from whom you purchase?" 
He replied that there was not. I asked him how 
he delivered his orders. He answered that he 
delivered them in person, or sent them by mail. 
I asked him to state the date and amount of his 
last order. He said that it was about two weeks 
before, and was for five hundred reams of extra 
super-calendered paper. I asked him how he 
delivered that order. He replied that he could 
not remember. I reminded him that it amount- 
ed to about 15,130.00, and that he ought to re- 
member how he delivered an order of that mag- 
nitude. He insisted that he could not remember, 
yet this order had been made April 1st. only 
eleven days before. 

This interview, I may say, was in the presence 
of Dr. Carlton. I had previously collected evi- 
dence that all of these statements were positive- 
ly false, but deemed it best not to present it 
until I had gotten it in writing. From the New 
York firm I received subsequently the following 
copy of the order referred to: 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 13 

Methodist Book Concern, New York, April 11th, 1869. 

Messrs. Campbell, Hall & Co.: 

Please forward 500 reams of extra snp. cal. 29x42—54. 
19 cents. 

Respectfully, S. J. GOODENOUGH. 

The above order was delivered by Porter, upon 
it lie received 2i per cent., and one cent per 
pound, which by his order, was added to the 
price, the Book Concern paying the bill. They 
also gave me a statement in writing of fifty-one 
orders, in the preceding four years, all of which 
were in the name of the Book Concern, and 
signed "S. J. Goodenough," but were delivered 
by Porter. These orders amounted in the aggre- 
gate to §174,985.24. Being thus further assured 
that Goodenough's statements were false, I laid 
the facts before Dr. Carlton, and asked him to 
examine them. Instead of doing so, he indulged 
in severe criticisms upon Porter, stating grave 
matters of which I had not previously heard, and 
greatly increased my surprise that such a man 
should have been allowed the control of so large 
an interest of the House. 

At a subsequent interview between Dr. Carl- 
ton, myself and Mr. Goodenough, Goodenough 
gave as a reason for his former statement that 
there was no "third party," that he thought 
Porter was the clerk of the Xew York firm. I 
replied that he could not have so thought, as he 
had known Porter for many years, and was at 
that time purchasing more paper from him, in 
his own name, than from all other persons. 



14 APPOINTMENT- ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

While this interview was going on I received a 
note from Boston, informing me that Porter con- 
trolled onr business there, and I said to Goode- 
nough: "I shall not be surprised to find that 
Porter controls our business in Boston, as he 
does in New York." With an air of injured in- 
nocence, he threw himself back in the chair and 
said, "That is ridiculous, you will find no such 
thing." I then read to him the note referred to 
as follows: "We pay Porter a commission, and 
can't do business with the Book Concern in any 
other way." I remarked, " Here is a rebuttal to 
your denial, strangely received during this con- 
versation." I handed the note to Dr. Carlton to 
read. Goodenough was silent, and did not then, 
as in the former case — and as he did subsequent- 
ly—plead that Porter was a clerk of the Boston 
house. As was usual when Goodenough was 
present Dr. Carlton was silent. 

The day following this interview, I told Dr. 
Carlton that Goodenough must leave the House, 
or I would. I also wrote a brief statement to 
the then Chairman of the Book Committee, Dr. 
Slicer, informing him of my probable resignation. 
Dr. Carlton proposed to assign Goodenough to 
another position in the House. I objected. He 
then proposed that he be allowed to resign, the 
resignation to take effect in six months. I ob- 
jected, that I would not do business even six 
months with a man who had told falsehoods to 
conceal his frauds. He then said that Goode- 
nough had many friends among our preachers in 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 15 

New York, and that his removal would create 
great excitement. I replied that we were agents 
of the whole church, and should not be deterred 
from our duty because a man's friends were nu- 
merous among the preachers. He then said 
that Mr. Goodenough was a member of the 
"Printers' Union," as were many of the men 
under him, and that they might rebel. I replied 
that if any of them interfered they ought to be 
discharged. He asked what I would do if they 
all rebelled? I answered that I would favor 
closing the house until men could be found who 
would mind their own business. He then pro- 
posed to call in some of the preachers of New 
York. I acquiesced, but he declined to carry 
out his own proposition. He then proposed to 
call in Key. Bishop Janes. To this I also agreed. 
The Bishop came, and after hearing a brief state- 
ment of the case, said "Mr. Goodenough ought 
to be allowed to resign." Dr. Carlton said he was 
afraid Goodenough would refuse to resign. The 
Bishop replied that that was not for Goode- 
nough to determine. After all this and like de- 
mur from Dr. Carlton, Goodenough's resignation 
came and was accepted, to take effect at the end 
of thirty days. He remained half that time, and 
received pay for the whole. 

I continued my investigations, and in the 
prosecution of them received the following let- 
ters from the bouse in Boston: 



1G APPOINTMENT-ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

Boston, June 14tb, 1869. 
Mr. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir:— I am in receipt of yours of the 10th hist, mak- 
ing inquiry respecting the orders for paper from the Metho- 
dist Book Concern. I will answer your questions. 

1. All orders which Grant, Warren and myself have re- 
ceived since July, 1867, have come direct from the house. 
For one year (from July, 1867 to July, 1868,) no orders were 
received from the house. Since July, 1868, the orders in the 
main, have come through J. F. Porter. 

2. On these orders, that is, from July, 1868, a commis- 
sion has been paid. 

3. The sum paid in the aggregate, amounted to $3,310.50. 

I trust this reply will be satisfactory. If further expla- 
nation is needed, it will be cheerfully given. Some one from 
my house will call upon you some time next week. 

Yours, etc., S. D. WARREN. 



Boston, December 28th, 1869. 
Rev. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— The amount of paper furnished the M. B. C, 
on which I paid Mr. J. F. Porter the difference in the price 
charged the house, and the price agreed with him, was 
$62,732.57. 
I remain, Yours very truly, 

S. D. WARREN, per W. H. Wardwell. 



Boston, August 17th, 1869. 
Mr. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— Yours of the 13th inst., is received. In my let- 
ter of June 14th, I stated that no orders were received by 
me from the Methodist Book Concern, from July, 1867 to 
July, 1868. I should have excepted the newspaper, 33%x46- 
56; about 80 reams per week for the Christian Advocate. 
These orders came direct from the house, but upon these 
Mr. Porter received a commission. In reply to your inquiry: 

1. Early in July, 1867, Mr. Goodenough stated to me that 
an arrangement had been made by which he was to be 
relieved of the care that was pressing upon him, and was 
to have the assistance of Mr. J. F. Porter; that Mr. Porter 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 17 

was to purchase all the paper we might sell to the Metho- 
dist Book Concern. We must arrange with him as to terms. 

2. Mr. Porter having been so introduced, I treated with 
him as to prices, and, under the pressure of competition, 
fixed a very low figure the paper must yield me, not know- 
ing what price he intended to charge the Book Concern. 

When the orders again came in the name of the house, 
but as before, through Mr. Porter, my price remained the 
same, and the difference between my price and that paid 
by the Book Concern, was given to Mr. Porter, as commis- 
sion. This was done as necessary to retain the business. 
Yours, etc., S. D. WARREN. 

From this letter it appears that in July, 1867, 
the Boston house was informed by Goodenough 
that thereafter J. F. Porter was to purchase all 
the paper for the Book Concern, and that they 
must arrange with him as to terms: That they 
paid Porter a commission on all paper sold to the 
Concern: That they could not retain the busi- 
ness in any other way: That in July, 1868, 
orders again went to them in the name of the 
Book Concern, but, as before, through Porter, 
who continued to receive a commission. This 
proves that my first inquiry of Goodenough (in 
July, 1868), led to an immediate change in the 
form of making the purchases by Porter, and 
further demonstrated that this whole arrange- 
ment was a secret contrivance between Goode- 
nough and Porter, whereby the Book Concern 
was defrauded out of the amount received by 
Porter. 

But this is not all. The books show that 
Porter had controlled the purchase of paper for 
the house prior to 1864. This could only be 



IS APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

done through, the connivance of Goodenough. 
From 1864 to 1869, Porter sold to the Concern 
direct, and received a percentage on purchases 
from other dealers, to the amount of about 
|526,617.50. I do not say what were his profits 
and percentage on this enormous sum, but from 
the specimens of exorbitant prices charged by 
him, which I shall furnish in another part of this 
narrative, a tolerably correct judgment can be 
formed. 

I need not argue here that this arrangement 
with Porter was improper, nor try to prove that 
it was a breach of trust. The anxiety of Goode- 
nough to conceal it, his tergiversations and con- 
tradictory statements, the testimony of the 
firms who were compelled to submit to it, suffi- 
ciently demonstrate its fraudulent character. 
In point of fact, J. F. Porter enjoyed a monopoly 
of the purchase of paper for the Book Concern 
by a secret arrangement with Goodenough, and 
upon every pound the Concern bought, no mat- 
ter how ordered, nor from whom, he levied a tax, 
which the dealers, by his direction, added to the 
cost, and this the house had to pay. 

It is not unusual to buy paper and other mer- 
chandise through brokers, but when was it ever 
heard that a man was employed as a broker for 
a house or houses, when he himself was engaged 
in selling in his own name the same article as 
the house or houses that employed him? The 
New York and Boston houses both, as I shall 
show, repudiated the statement that they em- 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 19 

ployed Porter to sell paper for tliem, yet in the 
face of their written and published denials, The 
Christian Advocate repeatedly told the church 
that Porter was a "middle man" or "broker," 
and was employed by these houses. The case 
was of one man who was allowed to take full 
possession of this part of the immense business. 
All the while the dealers verbally, and in writing, 
testified that they would have sold as cheaply 
to the Concern as to Porter, less the percentage 
he received. It would have been more than 
strange if they would not. 

It was well known that at the General Con- 
ference of 1868, Dr. Carlton gave as a reason 
why his colleague, Dr. Porter, should not be re- 
elected, that his son James had a monopoly of 
the purchase of paper to the damage of the 
Concern; and yet, after my election, Porter was 
allowed to continue this -shameful monopoly, 
until' I discovered the fraud and stopped it. But 
still more amazing is the fact, that in my efforts 
to correct the wrongs, I met with the most de- 
termined opposition, and finally a powerful com- 
bination, headed by Dr. Carlton, and the Editor 
and Assistant Editor of The Christian Advocate, 
and Mr. E. L. Fancher, was formed for the pur- 
pose of expelling me from my office in disgrace. 
And even yet more amazing, a majority of the 
Book Committee finally joined the combination, 
and not only assumed prerogatives that did not 
belong to them, but, as will appear in this nar- 
rative, actually trampled upon the law of the 



20 APPOINTMENT ENTRANCE <>.\ DUTY, ETC. 

( Jhurch, and every principle of common justice to 
accomplish their horrible purpose. 

A t 1 his point I put the evidence of the Goode- 
nough-Porter fraud briefly, in the following ser- 
ies of statements. 

Statement I. — That James F. Porter was al- 
lowed to control the purchase of paper for the 
Book Concern to his own personal profit, and to 
the detriment of the Concern. 

As proof that Porter controlled the business, 
I give some of the letters of the houses from 
which the purchases were made. The following 
is an extract from the letter of S. D. Warren, 
Boston, already quoted in full: 

"Early in July, 1867, Mr. Goodenough stated 
to me that an arrangement had been made by 
which he was to be relieved of the care that was 
pressing upon him, and was to have the assist- 
ance of Mr. J. F. Porter. That Mr. Porter was 
to purchase all the paper we might furnish the 
M. B. C. We must arrange with Mr. Porter as 
to terms." The same letter further says : " We 
fixed a low price the paper must yield us, not 
knowing what price he (Porter), intended to 
charge the Book Concern." He could, and did 
charge what he pleased. 

In another letter, dated Boston, December 28, 
1809, this same firm writes as follows: 

Mr. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir. -You ask if Mr. J. P. Porter was employed by 
us to sell paper to the Methodist Book Concern. I answer 
he was not. 

Respectfully, S. D. WARREN. 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 21 

Tlie following letter from Campbell, Hall & 
Co., I also offer in evidence: 

New York, November 6th, 1869. 
Rev. J. LaDahan: 

Dear Sir.— Porter frequently told us that he had entire con- 
trol of the orders of the Methodist Book Concern. He was 
never employed by us to sell paper. Our broker is Mr. 
Theodore Bartowe. to whom we pay one per cent, (one cent 
on the dollar), on all sales made by him. 

Yours truly, CAMPBELL, HALL & CO. 

In another letter of date ^November 10, 1869, 
the same firm says: 

From 1S63 to 1S67, we paid Porter two and one-half per 
cent, on Book Concern purchases of paper. His demand for 
one cent a pound additional we paid under protest, believ- 
ing the time would come when we could break up the 
infamous system, and ourselves and others be righted, and 
do business with your House as we had formerly done be- 
fore Porter came on the field of action, and in the same 
manner as we did with other large customers. 

Yours truly, CAMPBELL, HALL & CO. 

I present also as further proof, the statements 
of these houses, showing the amount of pur- 
chases and percentages realized by Porter: From 
the New York House Porter received in 1868, 
1 2,917.25. In the same year he made on what 
he sold in his own name, $6,872.84, making 
19,790.09. 

Ajside from these amounts, there were about 
§10,000 of Porter's sales I was not able to trace. 
I never believed the paper was received, though 
paid for. Allowing twenty per cent, on that 
sum, a small estimate, would make his gains 



22 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

$11,790 in a single year, ending July, 18G8. Is 
the Methodist Episcopal Church any longer sur- 
prised that I preferred to resign my position 
rather than to be a party to these fraudulent and 
outrageous transactions? Porter continued, in 
spite of my protest, to control the business until 
June, 1SG9," a period of about nine months. Dur- 
ing this period he received from the Boston 
House $3,310.50, and from the New York firm 
$5,785, aggregating $9,095.50. This certainly 
was a handsome salary for doing what Goode- 
nough declared he himself did, when he "fre- 
quently canvassed the market to get the lowest 
prices." From the "Order Books" of Goode- 
nough, I ascertained that in some cases Porter 
received as high as four and five cents per pound 
profit. I add also the letters of these houses in 
which they state that they would have sold as 
cheaply to the Book Concern as to Porter, less 
the percentage received by Porter. 

Boston, October 12th, 1869. 
John Lanahan, D. D. 

My Dear Sir.— You ask in yours of yesterday, whether 
from July, 18G7 to July, 1868 I would, under the same cir- 
cumstances, have sold paper to the Methodist Book Concern 
at the same price I sold to Mr. J. F. Porter, if the agents of 
the Book Concern or their employees had applied to me in 
person. I reply, I know no reason why, under the same 
circumstances, I should not have sold as low to the Metho- 
dist Book Concern as to Porter. 

Yours respectfully, S. D. WARREN. 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 23 

New York, January 25th, 1869. 
Rev. Dr. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— In reply to your inquiry whether we should 
have furnished the Book Concern the paper sold to Mr. 
Porter, and upon the same terms, we have to say, we 
should most certainly have done so. 

Yours truly, CAMPBELL, HALL & CO. 

November 17th, 1869, Goodenough presented 
to the Book Committee a long letter in wliich 
lie stated that he had shown to the Boston Honse 
a proof sheet of his defence, in which he stated 
that Porter was employed by that firm. I sent a 
copy of this letter to the firm and received in 
reply the following: 

As to the question of the agency of Mr. Porter, Mr. Good- 
enough did show me a proof of his defence, which stated 
that Mr. Porter was my agent. I told him distinctly that 
he was not. He knew that he was not and never had 
been. 

Yours truly, S. D. WARREN. 

Statement II. — That the fact of Porter's pur- 
chasing in this way was known to Dr. Carlton, 
and at the last General Conference assigned by 
him as a reason why his colleague should not be 
re-elected, and that nevertheless, Porter con- 
tinued to control the purchases until I, in the 
face of great opposition and personal abuse, 
stopped it. 

As proof, I presented to the Book Committee 
the affidavit of a respectable gentleman, in which 
he said Dr. Carlton told him, "the reason Dr. 
Porter was not returned as Agent of the Book 
Concern by the General Conference, was that his 



24 APPOINTMENT-ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

son had been employed as middle man in the pur- 
chase of paper for the Concern." (See paper 
marked 4 among the records of the Book Coni- 
mittee.) I could have added the testimony of 
several others. 

Statement in.— That Goodenongh assigned to 
the Boston House as a reason for giving this 
business to Porter, that to use his own words, he 
must be "relieved of the care that was pressing 
upon him," whereas he, during these years, in- 
stead of giving Ms time and attention to the 
Book Concern, was giving them to outside specu- 
lations of immense magnitude and variety. 

I cite as proof of Goodenough's assertion the 
letter from Boston, dated August 17th, 1869, 
already quoted. (See letter signed S. D. Warren, 
page 16). 

I name as evidence of Goodenough's outside 
speculations, or rather enterprises, that consti- 
tuted the "care that was pressing upon him," 
the Charter of the " Crown Petroleum Co., New 
York and Canada," dated March 19th, 1865, 
Capital Stock f 150,000.00, T. Carlton, President; 
H. B. Hoffman, Vice-President; S. J. Goode- 
nough, Secretary and Treasurer. I may add that 
the book-keeper and other employees of the Con- 
cern were directors in this company. The meet- 
ings were secretly held in the Book Concern dur- 
ing the business hours of the day. I may also add 
that I presented to the Book Committee tran- 
scripts of the records of the company's proceed- 
ings, which showed that the senior Agent, the 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 25 

superintendent of the bindery and printing de- 
partments, and the book-keeper, E. Grant, were 
appointed a committee to go to Canada and other 
places to attend to the interests of the company. 
The gentleman who allowed me to take a tran- 
script of their records assured me that they had 
swindled him out of the money he paid for stock 
in the company. 

I name also as further evidence of the "care 
that was pressing upon hint," the "Bidgewood 
Petroleum Co.," located in Pennsylvania; capital 
stock $500,000.00, of which Goodenough was 
corporator; Dr. Carlton, H. R. Hoffman and 
Elihu Grant, the book-keeper, were likewise 
owners in this company, and clerks of the House 
were directors. 

I name also as another ponderous " care that 
was pressing upon him," the "Crescent Petrol- 
eum Co., of New York and Canada"; capital 
stock $1,200,000.00, in which Goodenough was 
"Chairman of the Working Committee," In 
the services of these companies he travelled 
abroad to Pennsylvania, Canada and other 
places. There were other magnificent enter- 
prises and speculations that were doubtless a 
lie; ivy burden of "care pressing upon" the hard- 
worked Goodenough. It must be kept in mind, 
that apart from their frauds, Goodenough and 
Hoffman were entirely dependent on their sala- 
ries of $2,000 to each, per year. 

I have now lying before me a transcript from 
the "wages book" of the printing department, 



26 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE OX DUTY, ETC. 

which shows that Goodenough was absent in 
Canada and Pennsylvania six times in one year 
on pay-day, and that the wages were paid by 
Mr. McNaughton, one of tlie employees of that 
department. The record does not state how 
long he was absent at these several times attend- 
ing to the "care that was pressing npon him," 
nor could I learn how often lie was absent in 
the interim of pay-days; but the odds and ends 
of such immense business after his return from 
these distant places, must have greatly increased 
the " care that was pressing upon Mm." Added 
to all these was the care of his family, that was 
living at Wilbraham, Mass., where he was in 
the practice of going every three or four weeks. 
How a man with such multiplied and multiform 
"cares pressing upon him" could give any at- 
tention to the duties for which he was employed, 
I leave the reader of this narrative to judge. 
Nor need I dwell upon the most palpable and 
shameful impropriety of the Senior Agent of the 
Book Concern being in league with the employees 
of the establishment in gigantic oil companies, 
whose charters represented one million, six 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars. To my poor 
judgment, mismanagement and frauds were as 
inevitable as the operation of the law of cause 
and effect. The Book Committee, however, 
seemed to think differently, hence, a majority of 
the Committee, with these and many like facts 
before them, endorsed the management and con- 
demned me. 



APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 27 

Statement IV. — That J. F. Porter was an ut- 
terly unfit person to be entrusted with the pur- 
chase of supplies for the Book Concern. I for- 
bear to give the particulars of this statement, 
which would be an astonishment if published. 

Statement V. — That as soon as Porter's mo- 
nopoly was broken up by the removal of G-oode- 
nough, and the paper was purchased by myself, 
the saving on the average issue of the Christian 
Advocate alone averaged $34.73 per week, or 
$1,805.44 for the year, and on a single issue of 
the Sunday School Advocate the saving was 
845.73, or $548.76 per year; on the Good 
News, $21.73, or $260.76 per year; on the Mis- 
sionary Advocate, $58.70, or $704.40 per year. 
For all these periodicals, except the last named, 
the same quality of paper was purchased from 
the same manufacturers without there being 
any fluctuation in the market prices. The proof 
of this statement can be found in the "order 
books" of the printing department, and in my 
statement marked (7) in the records of the Book 
Committee. 

Porter's profits were much larger on book and 
writing papers than on news-papers, varying all 
the way from four to five cents per pound. Now 
when it is taken into account that the Book Con- 
cern had fifteen printing presses almost con- 
stantly running, a general estimate can be form- 
ed of what a vasl saving could have been on all 
the publications of the House during the Goode- 
nough-Porter reign. 



28 APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE ON DUTY, ETC. 

tlie amount of purchases during* Porter's mo- 
nopoly was about $700,000. I have never had a 
doubt that if my investigations had not been un- 
warrantably stopped by the Book Committee, I 
should have found abundant evidence, and the 
reader will think so too when I am through with 
this narrative, that large quantities of paper 
were paid for by the Concern that were never 
received. 

I may add that on the arrival at the Book 
( Joncern of the first lot of paper purchased by me, 
I called for the scales to have it weighed, but was 
informed that the practice had been to receive 
it without weighing. After some search, an old 
pair of scales was found in an out of the way 
place which were not in balance by some seven 
or eight pounds. I reported these facts to Dr. 
Carlton, and a pair of Fairbanks scales was 
ordered. Such, in part, were matters in the 
printing department, relating to the purchase of 
paper alone, all of which were fully presented to 
the Book Committee for their consideration, and 
as will be seen, a majority persistently ignored. 



THE BE\T)EKY. 

INVESTIGATION AND ITS RESULTS. 

After Goodenough left the Book Concern, I 
again reminded Dr. Carlton how often I had 
talked with him about the loose methods of con- 
ducting the business of the House, and expressed 
apprehensions that, if possible, a worse state of 
things existed in the bindery than had been 
found in the printing department, and urged him 
to examine, without delay, offering to render any 
assistance in my power, but my talk availed noth- 
ing. 

H. B. Hoffman was then Superintendent of the 
Bindery, and had held that position for about 
seventeen years. He lived meanwhile in Brook- 
lyn, in an expensive style — keeping fine horses at 
livery, one of which had recently died, being 
valued at |2,000. It was his custom to take his 
family to Saratoga Springs every Summer. I 
named these matters to Dr. Carlton, who replied : 
" Mr. Hoffman makes money speculating in 
stocks." I asked him if he ever lost any, and 
suggested that a speculator in stocks was not a 
safe person to be Superintendent of the Bindery, 
and have the charge of its large purchases of 
merchandise, and the payment of the wages. 

In the month of August, 1868, I had occasion 
to see Mr. Hoffman about a special matter of 

20 



30 THE BINDERY. 

work, and was informed that he had gone with 
his fan lily to Saratoga Springs. I asked Dr. 
( a ill on if he had gone with his permission? He 
said he had not. I proposed to discharge him on 
his return. Dr. Carlton objected, and said that 
we could not get along without him. I replied 
that he spent only two or three hours per day in 
the House, and so far as I could see, was of very 
little account. Dr. Carlton thought different iy. 

HOFFMAN'S SALARY. 

Dr. Carlton had previously informed me that 
Hoffman's salary was f2,000 per year, nothing- 
being said of perquisites. Having learned that 
there was no account of gold imperfections, and 
gold sweepings, I brought the matter to Dr. Carl- 
ton's attention, and he replied: "Mr. Hoffman 
is allowed these as a part of his salary, and 
they amount to only two hundred or three 
hundred dollars a year." I replied, " they amount 
to more than five times that sum." I also found 
that Hoffman was entered in the wages book as 
having drawn two hundred dollars per year in 
addition to the above amounts of salary and per- 
quisites, and named it to Dr. Carlton, who said 
that "that was by agreement with the Agents." 
I also found that there was no report of waste 
paper, paper shavings, binders' board cuttings, 
and leather clippings, which brought a high price 
in those years, and ought to have yielded from 
f6,000 to |8,000 per year. I give only one sam- 
ple out of many of Hoffman's sales of waste 



THE BINDERY. 31 

paper and paper shavings as found in his " mem- 
oranda " book : " Central Lake Mils, 5,143 pounds 
mixed shavings, 7J, $385.73." After careful in- 
quiry among large manufacturers of paper, I 
failed to learn that such mills existed. The entry 
in the cashier's cash book is "Sept. 30, |385 — 
Hoffman's salary." He was discharged August 
22, a month before. The article was sold to Kus- 
sel & O'Connel, New York, and I have from them 
a statement of numerous purchases of similar 
articles. The canceled checks in my possession 
from them, show sales of f600 worth at one 
time. I named that to Dr. Carlton, who 
said he "supposed Mr. Hoffman exchanged 
them for other stock." I have several of the 
checks by which dealers paid Hoffman for 
some of those articles. I also found that through 
a series of years Hoffman had been in the prac- 
tice of sending to the Cashier mere slips of paper 
" for miscellaneous articles," upon which he drew 
from $500 to $600 annually; also similar slips of 
paper for "Bindery purposes" from which he 
drew from $10 to $100 at a time. The proof of 
this can be furnished by persons now employed 
in the Bindery. No vouchers for these were pre- 
sented. 

I also found numerous bills for black velvet of 
a very superior quality, purchased by Mr. Hoff- 
man, at $16, $18 and $20 per yard. I also found 
bills for colored velvet, at $7 and $9 per yard, 
such as is used by book binders. I learned from 
Mr. W. T. Andrus, who had served as Hoffman's 



32 Tin; BINDERY. 

foreman .some ten years, and who, on Hoffman's 
removal, was appointed, and is now Superinten- 
dent of the Binder}', and from other workmen in 
the Bindery, that they had seen no books issued 
from the Bindery in black velvet. I showed the 
bills to Dr. Carlton and the clerks in the store, 
who said they had never seen books so bound. 

Having from week to week laid before my col- 
league the evidence of Hoffman's frauds without 
inducing him lo act, I at last told him that if 
Hoffman was not discharged I would leave the 
House, and added, that if he believed him inno- 
cent he ought to protect him, as I certainly would 
in the case of any man whom I believed wrongly 
accused. He replied, " Mr. Hoffman is employed 
by the year, and has six months to serve." I 
answered, "We must get rid of him first, and 
then talk of the time he has to serve — I will not 
stay here with a man who is robbing the House." 
He then proposed that we have an interview 
with Hoffman, and said " you had better be care- 
ful, he is a desperate man and a great fighter." 
In the interview, I enumerated to Hoffman sev- 
eral of his most glaring frauds, all of which he 
denied, of course. I then said to Dr. Carlton, 
"You are the Senior Agent and must speak. If 
you believe this man innocent you ought to pro- 
tect him." He replied, "I do not suppose Mr. 
Hoffman wishes to stay if you do not want him." 
Addressing me, Hoffman said, "I suppose you 
have seen my note to the Agents." I answered 
him that I had not. Dr. Carlton then produced 



THE BINDERY. 33 

the following, which Hoffman had given him the 
day before the interview, bnt he had said nothing 
to me about it: 

New York, August 22, 1869. 
Messrs. Carlton and Lanahan: 

Gentlemen.— I hereby resign my position as Superintendent 
of the Bindery of the Methodist Book Concern, to take effect 
the first of September, or at such other date as you may 
desire. Yours truly, 

H. R. HOFFMAN. 

Amazed at this new phase of my colleague's 
conduct, addressing him, I said, "Dr. Carlton, 
so far as I am concerned it must take effect 
here and now. I was deceived once by a 
resignation to 'take effect' (referring to Goode- 
nough), and shall not be deceived again." He 
made no reply, but the " desperate man and 
great fighter" slunk away to his room in the 
Bindery, where one of the workmen saw him 
destroy an account book and vouchers. I con- 
tinued my investigations and soon discovered 
that the frauds in the Bindery had connection 
with the account books of the Agents' office, and 
tli rough the inventories as shown in the further 
statements of this narrative. 

CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE AND ITS SUPPLEMENT. 

Finding that the many editorial denials of 
mismanagement and fraud failed to satisfy the 
Church, March 17, 1870, a supplement to the 
Christian Advocate was published, which pro- 
fessed to give a digest and explanations of the 



34 THE BINDERY. 

testimony taken before the Book Committee. 
Dr. Carlton and the Agents of the Western Book 
Concern, Messrs. Eitchcock and Walden, had the 
Supplement published in all the official papers, 
and thus more than a hundred thousand copies 
were sent throughoui theChurch. The materials 
of the Supplement were collected and arranged 
by W. H. l)e Puy and Dr. Carlton. When Dr. 
Curry, the editor of the Advocate, was asked 
before the Committee where the materials for 
the Supplement were gotten, he refused to an- 
swer, and said, "An editor is not hound to tell 
where he gets information; all the materials 
passed through my hands, and I am responsible 
for the statements of the Supplement." 

Two members of the Book Committee pub- 
lished in the Christian Advocate, the following- 
card: 

A CARD. 

To the members of the several annual conferences of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church: 

Dear Brethren:— We respectfully ask you to suspend 
judgment on the matters brought to your notice by a docu- 
ment which has been extensively circulated as a " Supple- 
ment " to several of the official papers of the M. E. Church, 
till an investigation, which has been ordered by the Book 
Committee, in accordance with the request contained in 
the following paper, has been made. 

May 20, 1870. H. SLICER, 

J. PIKE. 

« The following was also presented to the Com- 
mittee, to which they gave no attention what- 
ever: 



THE BINDERY. 35 

The undersigned, members of the Book Committee, feel 
it their duty to call the attention of that Committee to the 
fact that many false statements and misrepresentations, 
calculated to mislead and deceive the ministers and mem- 
bers of the M. E. Church concerning the " Book-Room 
troubles," are contained in a document called " The 
Christian Advocate Supplement," which has been widely 
circulated over all the land, and we respectfully ask of the 
Book Committee the appointment of a sub-Committee of 
their number to inquire and report, 

First. Concerning the truth of the charges herein con- 
tained. 

Second. What General Conference Editors and Agents 
are responsible for originating and publishing the afore- 
mentioned " Supplement." 

Third. What action ought the Book Committee to take 
in reference to the official conduct of the parties responsi- 
ble for its issue? L. M. VERNON, 

J. PIKE. 
H. SLICER. 

The character of the paper can be inferred 
from a few selections I shall make. Of the pur- 
chase of black velvet by Hoffman, the Advocate 
and Supplement said: 

"Among the alleged cases of misappropriation of property 
in the Bindery were two lots of black velvet, amounting to 
nearly $150. Upon inquiry nobody had any recollection of 
books bound in that material ever having been in the house. 
Suspicion had even detected its presence elsewhere, and in 
another use than binding books. The case for some time 
had really a bad look. But one day there appeared among 
ill.- mail matter received by the Agents, coining from Ver- 
mont, a little square package which proved to be a small 
sized Methodist Hymn Book, bearing the imprint of the 
Methodist Book Concern, and bound in black velvet. Other 
hymn-books, and also a large Bible bound in the same 
material were heard of in various parts of the country." 

But for the gravity of the matter, the above 
would be amusing and ridiculous. If " the little 



36 THE BINDERY. 

square package " was " received by the Agents," 
why w r as I not allowed to see it before it was 
paraded before the Committee? As Dr. Carlton 
failed to give any particulars in regard to the 
party from whom "the little square package" 
came, the Editor of the Christian Advocate or 
his assistant, who got up the Supplement, might 
at least have given his numerous readers the 
name and post office address of the person in 
"Vermont," who sent the "little square pack- 
age." They might also have specified at least 
one of the " different parts of the country " where 
" a large Bible and other hymn books so bound " 
were, or. at least, how the information came to 
them. I had not known of the " two lots of black 
velvet, amounting to nearly $150," until it was 
brought out in the above remarkable statement 
of the Supplement. My examination had not yet 
gone as far back as "twelve or fifteen years" 
from the date of the Advocate's publication of 
it. But from the following, which is a copy of 
one of the numerous bills for black velvet, it 
appears that the article had been purchased 
within less than fifteen months of the time I 
brought the matter to the attention of the Com- 
mittee. I give the date and number of the 
voucher, and name of the firm from which the 
purchase was made: 

No. of Voucher, 114. New York, October 28, 18G8. 

Carlton and Lanahan: 

Bought of Lord & Taylor, G yards of Black Velvet, $1G— 
$9G.OO. 

Endorsed, " H. R. H." . 



THE BINDERY. 37 

The above purchase was not " twelve or fifteen 
years from the date of the Supplement, March 17, 
1870," nor was it fifteen months. 

Thus, from the Advocate's own statement, 
Hoffman had been purchasing at the expense of 
the Book Concern, this costly article "from 
twelve to fifteen years," and no employee of the 
Concern had ever seen a book so bound. When 
men start out with the deliberate purpose of per- 
verting the truth, they are apt to uncover the 
badness of their own cause. Had I made a thor- 
ough examination I doubt not I should have 
found very many such purchases by Hoffman, 
but I had supposed that one clear case of fraud 
would satisfy the Committee. I was greatly 
mistaken. 

When Hoffman was questioned before the 
Book Committee, his only explanation was that 
" the black velvet was used to cover clerks' desks." 
A costly covering for clerks' desks. If the Com- 
mittee had had the least desire to have confir- 
mation of my statements, they would have asked 
to see the " clerks' desks " covered with the most 
costly velvet that the market affords, but they 
did not do this, and it was apparent even at their 
first meeting that some of the Committee were 
unwilling listeners to my narrative, and that 
unwillingness grew from day to day, and from 
month to month, through at least two dark years, 
until it culminated in the formation of a power- 
ful combination to effect my removal from office. 

No contradiction of my statement of the im- 



38 THE BINDERY. 

proper use of black velvet was made at the meet- 
ing of the Committee in November, but three 
months after at the meeting in February, Dr. 
Carlton produced a newly bound hymn book in 
black velvet which he said came to him from Ver- 
mont. The Committee did not. ask him to give 
the name of the person who sent it, nor the 
place in Vermont from which he had said it came, 
nor did they ask for evidence that such an edi- 
tion had ever been issued by the House. Oh! 
no, he must not be suspected of trickery! The 
Committee was always in the most susceptible 
mood when he unravelled what needed no un- 
ravelling. 

Hoffman was quite a liberal purchaser of other 
articles of dry goods than black velvet, which I 
was assured by the workmen, especially Mr. 
Andrus, the foreman, were not used in the 
Bindery, such as silks at three and four dollars a 
3 r ard; also linen, cambrics and cotton goods, such 
as are used for bed sheets and shirts. The fol- 
lowing copies of bills paid by the cashier are only 
a few samples. I give the dates, names of dealers 
from whom purchased, number of voucher, quan- 
tity and amounts paid. Some of the bills were 
in Hoffman's name: 

Voucher No. 241. November 3, 1864. 

Arnold & Constable: 

Five yards of Black Velvet, at $16.00 $80.00 

Four yards plain, at $9.71 38.84 

Eight yards plain, at $9.75 $75.60 

Total $194.44 



THE BINDERY. 39 

Voucher No. 52. April 17, IS— (year not given.) 
H. R. Hoffman bought of George Banks: 
Twenty yards of Muslin, at 25 cents $5.00 

Voucher No. 54. 
Thirty yards of Cambric, at 25 cents $7.50 

Voucher No. 55. 
Thirty yards of Muslin, at 25 cents $27.50 

The above three separate bills were in Hoff- 
man's name, but paid by the Cashier. 

Voucher No. 185. 
Mrs. H. R. Hoffman, bought of Lord & Taylor, 261 Grand 
Street: 

Forty yards of Muslin, at 45 cents $18.00 

H. R. H. 

Voucher No. 193. November 23, 1S65. 

Messrs. Aitkin & Miller, bought of Lord & Taylor, 467 

Broadway: 
Fifteen yards Silk, at $3.50 $52.50 

5 per cent, off 2.62 



Voucher No. 26. January 14, 1S67. 
H. R. Hoffman, bought of Lord & Taylor, 261 Grand St. 
Twenty yards Canton, at 25 cents $5.00 

Voucher No. 73. May 28, 1867. 
Mr. Hoffman, bought of Lord & Taylor: 
Twelve yards Silk, at $3.00 $36.00 

Voucher No. 73. July 26, 1867. 
Bought of Lord & Taylor: 
Eighty-one and one-half yards Muslin, at 30 cents. .$26.55 
Ninety-six yards Muslin, at 30 cents 28.95 

Total $55.50 



40 THE BINDERY. 

Voucher No. 125. October 7, 1867. 

Bought of Lord & Taylor, 467 Broadway, Mr. Hoffman, 
for Carlton and Porter: 

Thirty yards Linen, at 77M> cents $23.25 

Eighty-seven yards Muslin, at 28 cents 24.50 

Forty-one and one-half yards Canton, at 42% cents. . 17.64 

Total $64.43 

264J yards of muslin in a little more than two 
months. 

Voucher No. 140. November 4, 1867. 
Bought of Arnold & Constable: 
Three and one-half yds. Black Velvet, at $20 $70.00 

There were other articles of dry goods in this 
bill which I did not copy, all amounting to f 180.- 
50. See the voucher in the Book Concern. If 
it cannot be found, see the cash book of the above 
date for the amount paid. 

Voucher No. 35. March 18, 186-8. 

Bought of Lord & Taylor: 
Eighty-one and one-third yards Muslin, at 25 cents. .$22.13 

Voucher No. 42. April 9, 1868. 

Forty-five and three-quarter yds. Muslin, at 19% cents, $8.93 

These bills show the purchase of one hundred 
and twenty-six yards of muslin in twenty-one 
days. The four pieces noticed further on in this 
narrative, two of which were sent to Hoffman's 
house in Brooklyn, and two to a house on West 
27th Street, New York, and the six pieces noticed 
in the sub-committee's report, make his purchases 
of that article more than a thousand yards in 
one year. No wonder that he could sell dry 
goods to the employees, supply his own family, 
and make presents to others. 



THE BINDERY. 41 

Voucher No. 107. October 13, 1868. 
Oarlton and Lanahan, bought of Lord & Taylor: 
Thirty-three yards Silk, at $3 $99.00 

Voucher No. 88. 
R. H. Hoffman, bought of Lord & Taylor: 
Three yards Linen, at 70 cents $2.10 

Voucher No. 119 (No date.) 
Bought of Lord & Taylor: 
Twelve yards Silk, at $3.50 $12.00 

I was assured by the foreman and Ms men 
that this quantity and quality of silk was never 
used in the bindery. 

I ascertained that Hoffman during this time 
was selling dry goods to employees of the Bind- 
ery. Some who had knowledge of this are now 
employed in that department of the Book Con- 
cern, and will testify to the fact if questioned. 
He was also known to send such articles to his 
own house in Brooklyn, and to a house on 
West 27th Street, New York. His foreman, 
Mr. TV. T. Andrus, specified before the Com- 
mittee four pieces of muslin which came to 
the Bindery at one time during the previous 
month of March, two of which Hoffman sent to 
his house in Brooklyn, and two to the house on 
West 27th Street, No. 132, 

In my first report to the Book Committee, I 
stated that Hoffman kept in his employ in the 
Bindery a woman of bad character, and offered 
to furnish the proof, but the offer was not ac- 
cepted. I left it out of the printed synopsis 
which I furnished the Committee to avoid giving 
publicity to such an appalling condition of 



42 THE BINDERY. 

things. Only a few copies of the synopsis were 
printed, and those to facilitate the examination 
of my charges. The Advocate kept denouncing 

it as " the infamous fly-sheet." The Supplement, 
referring to the above offensive matter, said: 

" We are pleased to see that Dr. Lanahan omits this 
from his second edition of the Fly-sheet. We are glad of 
It, nol only because it avoids a very objectionable utter- 
ance, but also and especially it indicates a returning sense 
of the demands of the proprieties of life." 

As the Advocate tints proclaimed to the world 
what I, in the discharge of my official duty as one 
of the Agents, communicated to the Committee 
in their private meeting, I will now state a more 
specific case. I addressed a note to Mr. J. A. 
Kennedy, Superintendent of Police, requesting 
him to inform me as to the occupant of the house 
on West 27th Street, No. 132, above referred to, 
and received the following reply: 

New York, September 25, 1SG9. 
Rev. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— In reply to your inquiry in regard to the 
premises No. 132 W. 27th Street, I have to inform you that 
it is occupied by a Avoman known as Kate Heath, who 
keeps a house of prostitution, according to my books. 

Respectfully, J. A. KENNEDY, 
Supt. of Police. 

The Advocate's statement about the "second 
edition" of what it called my "fly-sheet," is in 
keeping with its oft repeated perversions of the 
truth. There was no " second edition." It was a 
synopsis of the first report I made to the Com- 
mittee by its order, and given in a printed form 
to each member, hoping thus to induce them to 
examine it. 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

Hoffman did work for outside parties, received 
and kept the money. I can give the names and 
particulars. He also sold the following tools as 
if they were his private property, and pocketed 
the money: One gouging machine, one backing 
machine, one punching machine, twenty gilding 
presses, twenty-six gilding stands, dies, etc., etc. 
I can furnish all the particulars as to the pur- 
chasers, giving the streets on which they were 
located, and the numbers of their houses. The 
above cost the Book Concern more than $1,000. 
They were named in the inventory of 1867, and 
not in the inventory of 1868. 

He also gave as presents to his friends elegant 
illuminated Bibles, put up in the most costly 
style — the finest that could be produced by the 
House. I found out four given away at one time, 
a low weeks before he was discharged, and got 
the names of the parties to whom he gave them. 
Oho was presented i<> William M. Tweed, a name 
famous in New York, and another to a member 
of the Book Committee. What is to be thought 
of members of a Committee receiving presents 
from persons whoso accounts and conduct they 
were inv< *s tigatin g ? Sol onion says, " a gift 
taketh away the heart." 

43 



44 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

The Supplement explained the above thus: 

" The story of the illuminated bibles is a short and plain 
one. By the etiquette of the trade, the Superintendent is 
entitled to a copy of every book published. Mr. Hoffman 
commuted this perquisite with the Agents and accepted 
instead of the books issued during his seventeen years of 
superintendeney the four bibles." 

Did that "etiquette" prevail in other houses? 
According to the above, Mr. Hoffman must have 
been a very generous man to relinquish seventeen 
years of " perquisites " for four illuminated 
bibles — all given away at one time, clandestinely 
too, for it was concealed from me. As I was one 
of the Agents at the time it was strange that I 
heard not of that "etiquette." 



FRAUDS IX LEATHEE. 

I finally commenced an examination of the 
purchase of leather, and soon had reason to 
know that my first apprehensions were more 
than realized, and that Hoffman's frauds were 
absolutely enormous. I, therefore, determined 
to ascertain as nearly as possible the extent 
of his frauds in that one article, dining the 
last eighteen months of his employment, 
namely, from December 1, 1867, the close 
of the fiscal year, to July 31, 1S69. He was dis- 
charged August 22, 1869, but made no purchases 
in that month, because he knew I was watching 
him. 

For the above purpose I employed three mas- 
ter binders to estimate the amount of leather of 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 45 

different kinds used in the above specified time- 
twenty months — Messrs. W. Matthews, of the 
publishing house of Messrs. Daniel Appleton & 
Co., W. M. Miller, of the Bible House and W. T. 
Andrus, of the Book Concern. From the Bind- 
ery records I gave these gentlemen the number 
and sizes of the books that had been bound; the 
patterns from which we cut, and average size 
skins of the different kinds of leather that had 
been used. They acted independently of each 
other. Mr. Andrus counted the pieces; hence 
his estimate was more exact than that of the 
other two. The following is the result of each 
estimate. Of course the estimates could not be 
exact, but approximate the amount. The count 
is by dozens: 

Morocco. Skivers. Sheep. Calf. 

Matthews 263 770 194 11 

Miller 264 820 198 12 

Andrus 260 720 217 10 

7S7 2310 ~609 33 

Total 7S7 Dozens of Morocco. 

2310 " " Skivers. 

609 " " Sheep. 

33 " " Calf. 
This aggregate divided by 3)3739 

Makes the amount used. . . . 1246% dozens. 
1 then got: 

1. The number of dozens on hand as per inventory, 
December 1, 1867 1111 doz. 

2. The number of dozens purchased from Dec. 1, 

1867 to July 31, 1869 2642 " 

The aggregate shows under Hoffman's control 
in these 20 months 3753 doz. 

3. Deduct from the above amount used as per 
estimate of Matthews, Miller and Andrus. 1246% " 

^25061/3 " 



40 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

4. Deduct also amount on hand at end of Hoff- 
man's service 750 dose. 

and it [eaves unaccounted for when Hoff- 
man was discharged 1756%*' 

This leather cost the Book Concern $26,353.57 

To this, add amount paid for "shaving 

and finishing," 1,81G.15 

$28,169.72 

The above details, I accompanied with the 
number of each voucher, from whom purchased, 
and the cost of the different classes of Leather 
purchased. The purchases were made from L. 
T. Lut kins, Campbell & Armstrong-, Griffin & 
Sons, and " Wm. Black/' if there was such a 
person. As I failed to find him, or to learn any 
thing about him, I doubted his existence as a 
dealer in leather. He may have been another 
"George Wilson," or "Abram Nelson," to be 
named further on in this narrative, who sold 
leather furnished by Hoffman. The other was 
H. Roys, one of Hoffman's especial favorites, who 
did all his "shaving" and "finishing," and sold 
him "Crust Sheep," "Skins in Salt," and the like. 
At least the Book Concern paid for such, the bills 
being in Roys' name. If the bills for these pur- 
chases from the above named dealers cannot be 
found in the Book Concern, I can furnish copies 
of them all which can be verified by reference to 
the cash book of the House. I copied them to be 
ready for any emergency because I discovered 
that important papers were being spirited away. 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 47 

WHAT BECAME OF THE UNACCOUNTED FOE 
LEATHER? 

My next effort was to ascertain what became 
of the Seventeen Hundred and Fifty-six Dozens. 
Upon examination I found that some of the 
vouchers were duplicates, and that the House 
had paid twice for the same article. Thus much 
paid for was never received. Upon further in- 
quiry, I ascertained that Hoffman had been in 
the practice of sending from the House large 
quantities of leather that were not returned. 

By Mr. Andrus I was informed that Hoffman 
man}' times had sent from the Book Concern 
large quantities of morocco, calf and sheep-skins, 
for which no account was rendered. He specified 
141 dozens of sheep-skins that had been sent 
away the previous Spring, about March, 18G8, 
some three months before I became one of the 
Agents. The facts in this case were very specific. 
By Hoffman's order, Mr. Andrus and one of 
the porters counted the skins. Hoffman then 
sent the porter to the store of H. Roys, to 
say to him "send for the skins immediately." 
Roys being absent, his salesman and book-keeper, 
Mr. Jones, sent for and received them, and the 
Book Concern received no credit for them on 
Roys' books. The same day Mr. Jones stated 
that Roys sold 120 dozens of the skins to the 
respectable house of Messrs. Hurd & Houghton, 
New York. I called on that firm and they cor- 
roborated Mr. Jones' statement. So confident 



48 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

was Mr. Jones that there was something wrong 
in this affair, that he made a note of it, and when 
the Book Concern frauds got into the news- 
papers he gave that note to me, and I gave it to 
the Book Committee, and it is now, or onght to 
be, among the papers of the Committee, if they 
are in existence. Mr. Jones testified before the 
Book Committee to the above facts. He also 
testified that Hoffman, during the previous 
winter, had sent to Boys' store at one time fifty 
dozens of morocco, at another time forty dozens, 
and at another time sixty dozens, for which the 
Book Concern received no credit on Boys' books. 
Mr. Jones further stated to the Committee, that 
he was willing to make oath to the above facts. 
When Mr. Andrus testified before the Book Com- 
mittee to his personal knowledge of the above 
counting and sending away of the leather, he 
was asked why he did not report it to the Agents. 
He replied, "the sending away of leather and 
other articles by Mr. Hoffman was a frequent 
occurrence, and he [Hoffman] was a man of power 
in the Concern, and a word from me about Mr. 
Hoffman would have led to my discharge." The 
horrible experience through which I was forced 
to pass demonstrated that Mr. Andrus judged 
correctly. 

In regard to the one hundred and forty-one 
dozens of sheep-skins, Hoffman told three dif- 
ferent stories. To Dr. Carlton and myself he 
said, "they were sent to Newark, N. J., to be 
shaved," and that they had been " sent back at 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 49 

different times." I asked him if he had any 
record in his books of sending them and of their 
return? He replied, "I made a note of it on a 
slip of paper which I destroyed." I asked him 
if he destroyed the slip of paper "at different 
times ? " He could not remember ! When he 
appeared before the Sub-committee and was 
asked by Dr. Pike, why the Book Concern had no 
bill for shaving them, he said, "his friend Boys 
shaved them for nothing." Several weeks after 
he said to the whole Committee, he supposed 
Koys charged for the shaving of them with other 
stock. 

The Advocate-Supplement attempted to ex- 
plain the above matter thus: 

Hoffman's explanation of the case is that he found the 
skins too thick for his work, and therefore sent them away 
to be shaved. The person receiving them at once informed 
him that he had in his store just such skins as he (Hoff- 
man) desired, and that he would exchange those thinner 
skins for Hoffman's thicker, and save expense of shaving 
the latter. That offer was accepted, and the skins were 
brought to the Book Concern, and as there was no expense 
on either side, no charge of the transaction was made. The 
explanation meets all the requirements of the case, and 
gives significance to all the facts proved; and as there was 
no proof of loss, the Committee dismissed the case as prov- 
ing nothing. 

One statement in the above is true. "The 
Committee dismissed the case." Yes, " dismissed 
the case," notwithstanding the contradictory 
statements of Hoffman, and the positive knowl- 
edge of those who testified to the facts. So it 



50 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

was all through the monstrous investigation of 
the Committee, especially at their second meet- 
ing. One of the Committee, Rev. Geo. \Y. Wood- 
ruff, Avon i so far as to declare that "there might 
have been 139, or 140 dozens, in that case the 
charge of fraud is not proved." 

It is remarkable that Hoffman through several 
years should have purchased largo quantities of 
leather thai required to be "shaved" or "fin- 
ished." It would be interesting to know what 
the first cost of the unshaved and unfinished 
leather was, so that by adding the cost of "shav- 
ing/' and " finishing " we could learn the net cost 
per dozen to the Book Concern. But of these 
important matters no record was made ! 

The following samples of bills, out of many 
others, will show the absolute recklessness prac- 
ticed in tin 1 payment of bills. I give the number 
of voucher, date and name of the dealer, so that 
the statements can be verified by reference to 
the originals or to the cash book: 

Voucher Xo. 3S. 1SGS. 
Carlton and Porter, to H. Roys: 
Seventy dozens shaved and put out $7S.T5 

[Put out where? They were never put in the Book Con- 
cern. J 

Voucher No. 77. 1868. 

Carlton and Lanahan, to H. Roys: 
For finishing 83 dozens $332.00 

Voucher No. 85. 18(38. 

Carlton and Lanahan, to H. Roys: 
For finishing 92 dozens $50G.OO 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 51 

Voucher No, 103. 1868. 

Carlton and Lanahan, to H. Roys: 
Shaving and finishing 100 dozens $525.00 

Voucher Xo. 23. 1869. 

Carlton and Lanahan: 
For finishing 60 dozens $1S0.00 

Voucher No. 40. 1869. 

Carlton and Lanahan, to H. Roys: 
Finishing 40 dozens $194.40 

Add to the above the 141 dozens which the 
Supplement said " were too thick for Hoffman's 
work," and we have nearly seven hundred dozens 
of skins that had to be "shaved and finished" 
after they had been purchased — all in less than 
one year! A tyro in business ought to have 
known that all such bills were fabrications. 
However, the cashier paid them! But what of 
the following: 

Voucher No. 16. Jan. 18, 1S64. 
Carlton and Porter, bought of H. Roys: 
Eighty-five dozens Crust sheep, at $7.20 $612.00 

My note on this bill, made at the time I copied 
it is "a hard looking bill, evidently written and 
endorsed by Hoffman or one of his confederates." 
I asked book-binders to explain "crust sheep." 
They smiled and said it was beyond their knowl- 
edge. But what of the following: 

Voucher No. 121. 1868. 

Carlton and Lanahan, to H. Roys: 
For 78 dozens skins in salt $546.00 

Voucher No. 13. 1869. 

Carlton and Lanahan, to H. Roys: 

For 67 dozen skins in salt $502.00 



52 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

Only to corroborate what I knew, I inquired of 
book-binders, what was meant by " skins in salt." 
They stated that manufacturers of leather some- 
limes put raw skins in salt to keep them from 
spoiling until they were ready to put them 
through the regular process of tanning. One 
master book-binder of forty -years' experience 
gave me the following in writing: "Skins in 
salt means that after the wool is taken off, skins 
are salted down to keep them from spoiling." 
So far as I knew, the Book Concern did not keep 
a tannery. 

I could fill pages with copies of such fraudu- 
lent bills. The practice was to pay any and 
every kind of bills endorsed by Hoffman, even 
though written and endorsed by himself, or by 
one of his several confederates. If he had en- 
dorsed a bill for a hide on an animal's back, I see 
no reason why it might not have been paid with 
others. 

After quoting the following from my report to 
the Book Committee: "Large amounts of skins 
in salt were paid for, but never used in the Bind- 
ery," the Advocate-Supplement said: "The evi- 
dence offered upon the charge was deemed by the 
Committee entirely insufficient to prove any- 
thing. There was no attempt made to prove 
that such skins had been sold from the Book 
Concern." 

Well, among the multitude of falsehoods 
crowded into that Supplement, the above short 
sentence is literally true. "No attempt was 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 53 

made" because "the skins in salt" were never 
sent to the Book Concern. If they had been, they 
would have attracted the attention of everybody 
in the Concern, and if kept there long out of salt, 
they would have become as rotten as had been 
the management of the Concern for more than 
twelve years. 

Continuing my investigation of Hoffman's 
thefts, I learned that forty dozens of morocco had 
been, a few weeks before, exposed for sale in a 
tin store, ISTo. 295? Pearl Street, by a young man 
named Abram M. Xelson. I traced the sale of the 
leather by Nelson to the respectable firm of 
Messrs. Kockwell & Co., who promptly gave me 
Nelson's bill and receipt for the money they paid 
him. I gave the bill to the Book Committee. 
The following is a copy: 

New York, October 22, 1S69. 
Messrs. Rockwell & Co.: 
Bought of A. Nelson, Metal, Tin and Lead, 295^ Pearl 
Street. 

15 dozens large skins, at $25.00 $375.00 

19 " small skins, at 23.00 437.00 

6 " inferior skins, at 14.00 S4.00 

$S96.00 
Less error on 19 dozens, at $1.00 per dozen 19.00 

$S77.O0 
Less 2 per cent 17.54 

$859.46 
Received payment, A. NELSON. 

Nelson sacrificed the leather because he 
learned that the theft was known. 



54 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

I showed the above receipted bill to Dr. Carl- 
ton and gave him an account of all the facts I 
had gotten and requested him to say nothing 
about it as I expected to gather additional facts 
in regard to Hoffman's robberies. Greatly to my 
surprise, I learned the next day that Hoffman 
was informed of my investigation and discovery. 

Up to that time, strange as Dr. Carlton's con- 
duct had been, I had not suspected him of great 
wrong, but now I felt confident that In* had in- 
formed Hoffman, and in the presence of Rev. 
James Pike and two other members of the Book 
Committee, I charged him with it. He denied 
having done so; I insisted that he had as I had 
not spoken of it to any other person. He still 
persisted in his denial and I persisted in reaffirm- 
ing my belief. He at last said : " I met Mr. Hoff- 
man on the street." I felt so confident that there 
had been a special meeting between them that I 
replied: "You did not meet him on the street." 
Xo doubt suspecting that I possessed more infor- 
mation than I really had, he then said: "I met 
him at Cortlandt Street Ferry." I then said: 
"Yes, at Cortlandt Street Ferry — you going to 
your home in Elizabeth, ]S T ew Jersey, and Hoff- 
man coming from his home in Brooklyn several 
miles in an opposite direction to meet you; I 
charge you with collusion." After an interchange 
of similar assertions by me and denials by him, 
the conversation ended and I saw plainly that I 
had a more important person than Hoffman to 
contend with. Within an hour or two after this 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 55 

sharp interview, Dr. Carlton kindly invited me 
to go out to a liinch-room and dine with him. 
I declined the invitation; my thoughts were on 
more important matters than dining. 

Pursuing yet further my investigations, I 
received the following letter which made trans- 
parent Hoffman's theft of the forty dozen of 
morocco: 

New York, November 1, 1869. 
Mr. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— Late in October or early in November, 1868, 
a party named Nelson called upon me and wished to sell a 
quantity of leather. To my inquiries as to the kind of 
leather, he replied that he did not know what it was except 
that it was for book-binders' use. I called, in accordance 
with his wish, at No. 295M> Fearl Street. It is a store where 
tin and lead are sold. The leather was lying covered up on 
the floor at the back of the store. I examined it, and saw 
at once that it was morocco of the finest brand that comes 
to this market. As I was almost the only importer of it, 
my curiosity was excited, and I walked forward to him 
and asked various questions in relation to it— whose it was 
—where it came from— why it was exposed for sale in a 
tin-store? and so on. To all of which questions he gave 
only the general answer, that it was his— he bought it of a 
friend— be did not know where it came from. I then re- 
examined the leather, and, accidentally overturning a 
bunch, saw my own private mark extending over a foot of 
space of every one of them— thus, 18-4-16, meaning thirty- 
four and 50-100, the two outsides being dollars, and the 
centre (4) meaning shillings. Upon this I immediately spoke 
to him again, and told him he would certainly get into 
trouble by soiling that morocco, as I was certain, from see- 
in- my private mark upon it, that it was on the market 
wrongfully. M< 1 said he know nothing about that; he had 
bought it, ami paid *•"><> per dozen for it, and he was going 
to sell it. lie added ho know it was worth that, for ho 
had had 40 dozen of it before, and could get 40 dozen more; 
but, if there was going to be trouble, he would rather sell 



56 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

it at cost, and have done with it. I then left him. From 
circumstances of a domestic nature, I was able to fix the 
exact date of the importation of that morocco; and upon 
going back to the store, I saw at once it was one of two 
lots sold to the M. B. C. and the A. B. S. at the same time. 
I knew it was not the A. B. S. stock, and from various 
things that had come to me from different sources, I was 
certain that it came from the M. B. C. 

I thought it was my plain duty to go to Mr. Hoffman 
without any fuss, and tell him that his stock was on the 
market. I did so, or rather I told him that a case of mo- 
rocco was exposed for sale in Pearl Street in a tin-store. 
He asked how that interested him. None, I said, only it is 
a case of morocco that I sold you, and I presumed it was 
sold by him (H.) from not wanting it, or it was stolen by 
some one from his place, and sold by them. To which he 
replied that it was not possible for any one to steal that 
amount of leather, and he had not sold or bought any 
leather since the last bill he had made with me, then about 
a year. I said, you compel me to remind you that this is a 
dead positive thing that I sold you this leather, and that it 
is now on sale in a tin-shop; now, Mr. Hoffman, what is my 
duty in the matter— what would you do if you were in my 
place? To which he replied, "I might do as I pleased. If 
you ask me, I will tell you plainly I'd mind my own busi- 
ness!" to which peremptory recommendation I hastened to 
comply. 

T. L. LUTKINS. 

Mr. Lutkins stated to the Book Committee that 
the Book Concern paid him forty dollars per 
dozen for this morocco, the whole amounting to 
$1,600. I put this case in the hands of Mr. John 
A. Kennedy, Superintendent of Metropolitan 
Police, who had the young man Nelson brought 
to his office. Mr. Kennedy gave me the following 
as the result of his investigation ; 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 57 

Office of Supt. of Metropolitan Police, 

300 Mulberry Street. New York, Oct. 27, 1869. 
Rev. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— That you may be fully apprised of all that took 
place in my conferences with Abram M. Nelson, I submit 
a statement of the purport, omitting the questions pro- 
pounded by myself, except where necessary. 

Yours truly, J. A. KENNEDY, Supt. 

New York, October 19, 1869. 
Detective Bennett having introduced Mr. Nelson, to ques- 
tions put, he replied in substance, as follows: He is a 
clerk of his father, A. Nelson, Metal Broker, 295% Pearl 
Street, New York. He sometimes does a little speculating 
on his own account. About a year ago, he operated in a 
lot of morocco. He does not know how much there was in 
the lot, nor how much he paid for it. He bought it from a 
man named Geo. Wilson. He had no bill for the morocco, 
nor did he take any receipt for the money. He sold the lot 
to Rockwell & Co., but he does not know how much he 
sold it for. He cannot remember how much he received a 
dozen, nor the aggregate amount of the bill. He keeps no 
books nor accounts of his own transactions. He only re- 
members that he made about two dollars per dozen profit, 
without remembering what it amounted to. Nelson then 
spoke of having a defective memory. He does not know 
where George Wilson lives. Did not know when he bought 
the morocco from him. He does not know how, nor when, 
nor where he became acquainted with Wilson. He may 
have met him at Fifth Ave. Hotel, where he was frequently 
introduced to strangers. Does not know who introduced 
him. Did not know anything about leather. Went into it 
as a venture. Before selling it to Rockwell he had offered 
it to Lutkins, who on examining it, said he had sold it to 
the Methodist Book Concern. That he knew it by a private 
mark it bore. Mr. Lutkins was very anxious to know from 
whom it was gotten. He (Nelson), refused to tell him, and 
may or may not have said that he had had some of the 
same sort before, and that he could get more, but that he 
never had had any of it before. He does not know where 
George Wilson lives. He has understood that he went to 
Europe. He does not know Wilson by any other name 
than George Wilson. He never heard him called George 



5S ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

P. Wilson. During the interview, Mr. George P. Wilson, 
formerly in the employ of the Book Concern, in the 
bindery, was introduced into the room. Nelson was asked 
whether he knew him. lie said he had never seen him 
before. That he was not the person who sold him the 
morocco. The person before him was not at all like George 
Wilson. 

.T. A. KENNEDY, Supt. Police. 
This in the presence of J. Lanahan, Jas. Bennett, Geo. P. 
Wilson, J. A. Kennedy, Supt. 

I was present at the above examination with- 
out, the knowledge of Nelson. A defective 
memory is apparently a common infirmity of 
thieves and other criminals. The following 
shows, however, that Kelson's memory was sus- 
ceptible to some improvement: 

Office of Metropolitan Police, 
300 Mulberry St. 

New York, October 20, 18G9. 
Rev. J. Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— Mr. Nelson called at this office alone, about 4 
P. M., and without waiting for any questions to be put or 
any remark to be made relative to the morocco business, 
said, he had been thinking of that matter ever since he was 
here yesterday, and remembered now distinctly of having 
bought a lot of the same sort of morocco from the man 
who called himself George Wilson, before he sold tlie lot to 
Mr. Rockwell. 

J. A. KENNEDY, Supt. Police. 

This voluntary return of Xelson to the Police 
Office to retract his denial of the previous day 
and acknowledge that he had before had some 
of the same land of morocco, was no doubt by 
the advice of Hoffman, who apprehended that 
the fact was known, or that I would find it out, 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRATTDS. 59 

FRAUDS IX BIXDEES' CLOTH. 

For the purpose of ascertaining the exteut of 
Hoffman's frauds in the above article, I adopted 
the same method as that in regard to the matter 
of leather. The result showed that in the 
eighteen months above specified, about two hun- 
dred pieces were unaccounted for, costing from 
§7.00 to $9.00 per piece. 

FRAUDS IN PAYMENT OF WAGES. 

The wages in the bindery were paid every two 
weeks, averaging $1,833.40 every pay day, and 
|47 9 668.39 per year. Hoffman drew the amount 
from the cashier upon an order like this: "Due 
for Bindery purposes, H. K. H." My examina- 
tion disclosed more than 200 frauds in the pay- 
ments in four months. His method was this: 
If the wages of a woman in the foldiug room were 
$10.10, he would enter the amount in the wages 
book $12.10, always adding $2, leaving the cents 
according to the face of the bill. This was made 
plain by comparing the book kept by the head 
of the folding room with Hoffman's wages book. 
Names of persons too were kept on the wages 
book who were not employed in the house. Some 
of the men employed testified before the com- 
mittee thai when they signed the wages book, 
Hoffman kepi a blotter over the column contain- 
ing the amount paid, and frequently said he 
would enter 1 lie amount himself. There are those 
now employed in that department of the Book 



60 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

Concern who will verify these statements. They 
were of common talk among the employees, some 
of whom kept books of their own, which were 
presented before the Book Committee; among 
them, I recall the name of Elijah Myers, who 
may yet be there, if not, there are others who 
know all abont it, and will so state if questioned. 
Mr. Myers presented a book in which he kept his 
own receipt of wages, bnt the Committee ruled 
it out. The agents exercised no oversight in 
person, or by others, in the payment of wages. 
Hoffman stated the amount required, received it 
from the Cashier and he alone distributed it. 

FRAUDS IN INVENTORIES. 

For brevity I arrange them in the form of 
statements. 

Statement I. In the year 1868, Hoffman used 
143,202.06 of stock in turning out $98,961.18 of 
work. In two years, 1870 and 1871, the present 
Superintendent of the Bindery, Mr. W. T. An- 
drus, used $42,546.15 of stock in turning out 
$170,186.18 of work. I gave the Committee as 
proof (1st) transcripts from the account books of 
the Concern, showing the amount of money paid 
in all those years for stock for the bindery and, 
(2nd) tabulated statements showing the numbers, 
sizes, and styles of the books bound during the 
two periods. In the years 1870-1871, 339,682 
more books were bound, under the administra- 
tion of Mr. Andrus, than in 1868, yet less stock 
was used in these two years than Hoffman used 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 61 

in one. Under Hoffman during those years there 
was no material change in the price of stock, as 
proved by written statements of dealers, and the 
work turned out in these years was uniform in 
kind. 

Statement II. That the bindery inventories 
and account books contained false entries as 
appears from the following items. 

Item 1. To the bindery inventory of sheet-stock 
for 1856 was added §12,000 in lump in these 
words and figures : " Add 12 per cent, on $100,000 
for increased cost of printing, $12,000," whereas 
the whole amount of the sheet-stock, or printed 
matter, for that year, as per inventory, was only 
183,923.56. 

In 1857, the valuation of sheet-stock was very 
largely and fictitiously increased in detail in the 
inventory, notwithstanding which "12 per cent, 
on $100,000 for increased cost of printing," was 
again added, whereas the actual amount of sheet- 
stock as shown by the inventory was only 
$84,351.69. 

The same amount, $12,000, was again added to 
the inventory of 1858 " for increased cost of print- 
ing," whereas the actual amount of sheet-stock as 
shown by the inventory, was only $70,969.79. 

Thus in three years 12 per cent, was added on 
$57,718.79 worth of sheet-stock more than the 
Concern possessed, or than was shown by the 
inventories. The inventories are yet in the Book 
Concern, and the correctness of these statements 
easily can be verified. 



62 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

It may be appropriately asked, what the 
bindery had to do with the "increased cost of 
printing"? That had been fixed by the printing 
department. Not only so, but much of the sheet- 
stock of one year was of course carried into the 
inventory of the succeeding year. Thus "12 per 
cent." was duplicated on the same article. 

Item 2. In the bindery store account book of 
1857 to 18G2, inclusive, (which is a record of work 
turned out in that department) the footings of 
one year are carried into the footings of the 
succeeding year in numerous instances, and thus 
counted several times. The bindery store account 
book is, of course, still on hand in the Book Con- 
cern and any person who may desire to verify 
this statement I refer to said book, pages 2, 28, 
49, 116, 236, 276, 282, 300, 301, 332, 312, 110. 
Was that "mismanagement," or fraud, or what? 

Item 3. In the same book, although the work 
turned out in 1862, is entered in detail, aggregat- 
ing several thousand items, no extensions, or foot- 
ings, of the cost of the work are made for six 
months of the year, thus the value of the work 
turned out could only be guessed. I refer to this 
as proof of the most criminal mismanagement. 

Fully to appreciate it the book need only be 
seen. I had the extensions carried out and the 
footing made as far as it was possible, and the 
showing of work turned out for that year was 
only $40,379.00 while the same book showed, in 
the succeeding year, 1863, that the work turned 
out was $177,681.86. Yet the work for the year 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 63 

1863 was entered in the ledger of the Agents' 
office, |185,421.59, a difference of $7,730.93. 

Item 4. The inventory of the bindery for 
November 30th, 1864, is entered in the ledger as 
$161,641.08, and upon that basis a profit is shown 
of $18,641.08 in that department. The inventory 
itself (which is the original record from which 
the entry should have been made) shows the 
amount to be $138,908.39. The entry in the 
ledger is a false entry. Had the correct amount, 
$138,478.19, been entered in the ledger, it would 
have shown a loss in the bindery of $4,254.50. 
The manifest object of the false entry in the 
ledger was to conceal this loss of $4,254.50, and 
force an apparent profit of $18,908.39. 

Referring to the above, Dr. Carlton's expert 
accountant, Mr. John A. Gunn, in his elaborate 
report, page 33, says: 

Dr. Lanahan has denominated the entry of $161,641.08 
to the credit of " Bindery " a " false entry," claiming that 
as, if the smaller amount ($138,478.19) had been placed to its 
credit, it would have shown a loss of $4,254.50, the Inven- 
tory was first increased by the addition of this amount in 
order to show on the Books a profit of $18,908.39, and then, 
after the Books were closed, in order to show a less amount 
of assets, reduced again by its subtraction to the amount 
stated in the Exhibit. 

What the fact was, cannot be determined from the 
Books, as there is no explanation of the reduction, the leaf 
of the inventory Book upon which the figures relating to it 
would have been found having been cut out, but taking 
that view of the change of Inventory in 1864 in connection 
with the fact that in the following year (1865) the addition 
of 25 per cent, on $117,529.55, viz., $29,382.39, to the account 
of " Work " in the Bindery, caused the account in that year 



64 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

to show a profit of $7,024.12, instead of a loss of $22,358.27, 
the changes of the two years may be thus stated: 

Losses 1864, $ 4,254.50 

" 1S65, 22,358.27 



$26,612.77 
Apparent Profits after the chgs., 1864, 18,908.39 
1865, 7,024.12 



Increase of Inventory in 1864, $23,162.89 
Increase of Work in 1865 29,382.39 



25,932.51 
$52,545.28 



$52,545.28 



And it is a singular fact that while the footing of the 
" Work " in 1865 is $118,527.55, twenty-five per cent, on 
which would be $29,631.88, there was added 25 per cent, on 
$117,529.55, which is the required amount. 

The explanation as to the cut out leaf is, that 
my examination preceded Mr. Gunn's and was 
made before the leaf was cut out. The cutting 
out of leaves and making erasures in the books 
was commenced when it was seen that I was 
having important records and papers copied. 
The frequent disappearance of vouchers, and 
making erasures in the books, caused me to 
apprehend the disappearance of many important 
records. My accountant numbered about two 
hundred erasures in the books. 

Mr. Gunn specifies another remarkable case in 
1861, and says: 

The balance (of amounts due on periodical accounts) of 
this account had been from 1850 to 1860 exactly $10,000, 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 65 

and with this balance the account for 1861 was closed, 
with the debit "To profit and loss $75,009.56," and cor- 
rectly footed. Subsequently " $10,964.00 " was interlined, 
but the footings remain unchanged; the same amount is 
interlined in the profit and loss account, and the balance 
of the periodical account, carried forward to 1862, is 
$20,964. The book in which should be found the original 
entry is said to be lost. 

It was easy to lose an account book in those 
days! 

Item 5. The bindery store-account book (so 
called) shows in the final footing of work turned 
out for 1865, f 117,547.55, to which was appended 
the following note: "Add 25 per cent, for in- 
creased cost of labor, etc," thus arbitrarily 
increasing the amount of work for the year to 
1147,909.94. The stock was paid for when pur- 
chased, the cost of labor was paid every two 
weeks, and both were included in the price 
charged for binding. The evident object of this 
addition of |29,382.39 was to force an apparent 
profit of $7,024.12, and conceal a loss of $22,358.27, 
as shown above by Mr. Gunn. 

Item 6. The bindery store-account book shows 
that the amount of work turned out in the year 
1866, was $147,073.03. From this amount 12J 
per cent., making $18,304.12 was deducted. But 
while this sum was deducted from the amount of 
work turned out in the bindery, $12,808.36 was 
added to the bindery inventory for "increased 
cost of material and labor," and $6,900 was added 
to the two inventories of bound books in the 
store, "for increased cost of labor and material," 



6G ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

making an aggregate addition of $19,708.36. 
These deductions and additions were used to 
conceal legitimate results. They were frauds. 

Item 7. In the bindery store-account book, 
before the final footings for the year 1868 were 
made up, the following item was appended: 
"Binding, Dec. 1st, 1867, $13,540.52." With this 
addition the showing of work turned out in 1868 
was $90,961.78. By referring to the account of 
w<»rk turned out for 1867, I found that the 
$13,540.52 was actually counted twice; not only 
so, but the footing of the work book is only 
$24,009.04. It should be $44,009.04— that looks 
like "mismanagement." The inventories and 
store-account book above referred to are large 
well-bound volumes and permanent records, and 
any person sufficiently interested in this narra- 
tive can easily test the correctness of my state- 
ments. 

Item 8. That after Hoffman was discharged 
no record, nor invoice, or receipt book, for the 
bindery was found to show that goods purchased 
were received. He himself stated that there was 
no such record, when examined before the Sub- 
committee. Properly to keep the bindery ac- 
count without an invoice book was absolutely 
impossible. I offered to call before the Com- 
mittee an employee of the bindery who was ready 
to testify that he had seen Hoffman destroying 
account books and vouchers the day before he 
left the house, but my offer was not accepted. 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 67 

Such in part was the condition of things in the 
bindery, and in the inventories in the Agents' 
office. 

It is proper to state, that during those troubles 
reports were spread abroad that the workmen 
were several times on the point of rebellion 
against my administration of the affairs of the 
manufacturing departments. All such reports 
were without a shadow of foundation. Excepting 
Goodenough, Hoffman, and one other employe, 
my relations to them all were entirely pleasant. 
When they learned that I was investigating, they 
were prompt to communicate matters of which 
they had personal knowledge. Having received 
assurances from me that come what might, I 
would protect them, they visited my residence at 
night to tell what they had long known. To them 
I was indebted for much of the success of my 
investigations. 

After Mr. W. T. Andrus was appointed super- 
intendent of the bindery, Dr. Carlton said to me 
that we ought to have a Methodist in that posi- 
tion and stated that Mr. Andrus was a Baptist. 
I replied that if Mr. Andrus had been fit to serve 
under Hoffman — who was of no church — nearly 
ten years, we ought to keep him, especially as he 
had helped to unearth Hoffman's frauds. I then 
notified him that I would resist to the last ex- 
tremity the removal of Mr. Andrus. He was 
retained and is there yet. 



GS ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

RBPOET OF SUB-COMMITTEE. 

Nov. 4, 1869. 

To the Chairman and members of the Book 
Committee : 

The undersigned Sub-committee appointed to 
examine the accounts of the Book Concern at 
New York respectfully report, that we have 
examined somewhat minutely the accounts of the 
Bindery and Printing departments, covering the 
period which has elapsed since the last General 
Conference, and have also given such attention 
to the other accounts of the Agents as our time 
would allow, with the following result: 

1. There were found several entries in the 
petty cash book for which no vouchers could be 
found (see Exhibit marked " one "). [This exhibit 
I did not find when I copied the Committee's 
records. J. L.] 

2. The vouchers of the printing department 
were not original* bills, but only monthly state- 
ments (so called). We asked for the original 
bills but they could not be furnished. 

3. Several bills for merchandise bought for the 
bindery were incorrectly cast. The fact that 
bills were paid before they were known to be 
correct led your Committee to inquire whose duty 
it was under the requirements of the Agents, to 
carefully examine and check each and every 
invoice of goods purchased and received by the 
Book Concern, and to certify to their correctness 
before the cashier should be at liberty to pay 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 69 

them, and we found that nothing of the kind was 
done at all, unless done by the head of the depart- 
ment that made the purchases. But the head of 
the bindery department where these errors were 
found, not unfrequently certified bills without 
examining them at all, and they were paid by 
the cashier without haying been examined by 
anybody else. See exhibit No. 2, as follows. [I 
give the exhibits as they are referred to, to make 
a continuous statement. J. L.] 

"Exhibit 2," bills in which errors have been 
found : 

Voucher No. 64. Jan. 13, 1868. 

Campbell and Armstrong $1,020.00 

Over paid 10.00 

Should have been paid $1,010.00 

Campbell and Armstrong, July 17, 1SG8 $953.25 

Over paid 2.50 

Should have been paid $950.75 

Merritt and Draper, Dec. 4, 186— (no year given) .. $264.08 
Over paid 82.82 

Should have been paid $181.26 

Armstrong, June 30, 1868 $1,070.78 

Over paid 630.00 

Should have been paid $440.7S 

4. Examination of the "Wages Book" (so 
called) of the bindery department revealed the 
fact that sums of money amounting, since the 
last General Conference, (a little more than one 
year) to more than nine hundred dollars have 



70 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

been drawn by the superintendent under the head 
of "Miscellaneous Articles/' for which no 
vouchers were rendered, and concerning which no 
satisfactory explanation could be given to your 
Committee. 

5. The accounts of the Agents give no satis- 
factory idea of the amount allowed the head of 
this department as compensation for his services. 
The fact that when he was superseded, his salary 
was overdrawn more than five hundred dollars, 
led your Committee to examine minutely respect- 
ing his salary, with the following result; that is, 
we found that in the year 1864, his salary was 
raised from 1,600 to 2,000 dollars. Upon this 
basis he was settled with in September last. 
This 2,000 dollars we supposed constituted his 
condensation for services, until an examination 
of the wages book of his department showed us 
that he had drawn since the last General Con- 
ference, on each of three several occasions, two 
hundred dollars as additional salary. On inquiry, 
we learned that he had done this for several years 
in pursuance of an agreement with the Agents 
by which his compensation should be increased 
two hundred dollars a year, but it was not to 
appear on the books as part of his salary. We 
subsequently found that these items did not cover 
the whole of the amount allowed Mr. Hoffman 
as compensation, but that the " gold-sweepings " 
had been given to him for several years. A 
careful examination of these gold-sweepings 
made it clear to your Committee, that for six 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 71 

and a half years their value could not have been 
less than sixteen hundred dollars per year, which 
amount being added to twenty-two hundred 
dollars, made thirty-eight hundred dollars as the 
compensation of Mr. Hoffman for his services, 
without including what was drawn under the 
head of "Miscellaneous Articles." Your Com- 
mittee have learned that other employees of the 
Concern are allowed perquisites by the Agents, 
but whether on a scale of such magnificent liber- 
ality as in the above cited case, our researches do 
not enable us to determine. (See exhibit marked 
" three "). [I did not find this exhibit among the 
papers of the Committee. J. L.] 

6. Your Committee find nothing in the ac- 
counts of the Agents to show that the quality and 
quantity of the goods received, corresponded with 
the quality and quantity of the goods bought. 
Indeed there was nothing to show that the goods 
bought were ever received at all. 

In view of this utter want of any system of 
check to prevent and expose fraud, and knowing 
that painful apprehensions existed in some minds 
that the opportunity for fraud had not been 
unimproved, the Committee felt called upon to 
determine, if possible, whether or not frauds had 
been committed upon the Book Concern, in con- 
nection with the bindery department, and as the 
result of our careful investigations, we are now 
prepared to show a deficit in the article of leather 
alone, since December 1st, 18G7, of not less than 
1,100 dozens, winch cost the Concern not less 



72 ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 

than $20,000. The process of calculation by 
which this deficit was discovered will appear by 
an examination of a document herewith present- 
ed. (Exhibit No. 4.) 

Exhibit of leather in the Methodist Book Concern. 

Leather on hand Dec. 1, 1867 (end of fiscal year) as per 

inventory. 

Morocco, 414 dozens, cost $10,748.00 

Skivers, 458 " " 4,726.00 

Sheep, 214 " " 2,406.00 

Calf, 9 " " 375.00 

1095 $18,255.00 

Leather bought from Dec. 1, 1867, to Sept. 1, 1869, (19 
months). 

Morocco, 630 dozens, cost $15,491.70 

Skivers, 869 " " 8,463.89 

Sheep, 1076 " " 10,931.05 

Calf, 19 " " 800.00 

2594 $35,686.64 

Leather used from Dec. 1, 1867, to Sept. 1, 1869. 

Morocco 292 dozens. 

Skivers 728 

Sheep 488 

Calf 12 

1520 

Leather on hand Sept. 1, 1869, as per inventory (count). 

Morocco 259 dozens. 

Skivers 397 " 

Sheep 79 

Calf 16 " 

751 " 



ANOTHER CLASS OF FRAUDS. 73 

Add leather on hand Dec. 1, 1867, to leather bought from 
Dec. 1, 1867, to Sept. 1, 1869, and we have. 

Morocco 1044 Dozens. 

Skivers 1327 " 

Sheep 1290 

Calf 28 " 



Add amount used to amount on hand Sept. 1, 1869, giving, 

Morocco 551 dozens. 

Skivers 1126 

Sheep 567 

Calf 2S " 

2272 

Deduct 2,272 from 3,689=1,417 as the amount unaccounted 
for as follows: 

Morocco 493 dozens worth $12,400.00 

Skivers 201 " " 2.000.00 

Sheep 723 " " 0,600.00 

1417 $21,000.00 

JAMES PIKE, Chairman. 
G. W. MALTBY, 
JAS. ERWIN. 

The " worth," or cost of the above leather was 
gotten from the bills paid. The " amount used " 
was the estimate of master-binders employed by 
the Committee who were furnished the patterns 
from which we cut, and average size skins; the 
number and sizes of the books bound and the 
different kinds of leather used, all of which 
accompanied the above report, and the particu- 
lars of these matters were explained to the Book 
Committee by Dr. Pike. My examination, ex- 
tending through several weeks, was more exact 
than the Sub-committee's, as I had more time to 
devote to it. 



FKOM PRIVACY TO PUBLICITY. 

My investigations resulting in the discovery of 
most of the above facts, had been conducted so 
quietly through the several months already 
specified that nothing was known of the matter 
outside of the Book Concern, except to a very 
few confidential ministerial friends until after 
the discharge of the offending employees, al- 
though the pastors of New York and vicinity 
met there every Monday in " Preachers' Meeting." 
The cause of the discharge of Groodenough and 
Hoffman then began to be talked of freely, and on 
the 21st of Sept., 1869, the following headed "A 
Painful Revelation" appeared in the New York 
Times: 

It is with great reluctance that we give currency to a 
very unpleasant report which has reached us in regard to 
an institution which of all others in the land ought to be 
beyond reproach, or even suspicion. The authority, how- 
ever, for what we are about to announce is of such a 
character that silence on our part would, under the cir- 
cumstances, amount to delinquency. We are credibly as- 
sured that the new Agent of the Methodist Book Concern, 
Rev. Dr. Lanahan, has discovered in that establishment 
great corruption and fraud, involving losses to the amount 
of several hundred thousand dollars. 

The subject, we understand, is now undergoing investi- 
gation, and as soon as the details can be given to the public 
without prejudice to any but culpable parties, we shall 
endeavor to furnish them. 

These frauds, it is said, have been going on for some 
eight or nine years, and of course their full extent is not 
74 



FROM PRIVACY TO PUBLICITY. 75 

yet ascertained with precision. The magnitude of the busi- 
ness transacted by this Concern, and the reputation which 
it has enjoyed for probity in its management, conspire to 
give to any suspicion against it a painful importance. It is 
only six months since we had the satisfaction of saying 
of this institution, in the columns of the Times, " that it 
should be recorded, to the honor of all concerned, that not 
a dollar has ever been lost by the defalcation of its mana- 
gers from the commencement of its business " in 1789. 
Unfortunately that cannot be said of the Methodist Book 
Concern any more. 

With a note of introduction from Key. Dr. 
John McClintock, to Mr. J. Biglow, editor of The 
Times, I called on that gentleman and expressed 
regret at the appearance of the article, and stated 
that the frauds were confined to employees and 
that they did not in any way impair the financial 
condition of the house. At that time I did not 
suppose that my colleague was personally in- 
volved, strange as his conduct had been. The 
next day the following appeared in the Times: 

[From the New York Times, September 23, 1869.] 

Inquiries at The Methodist Book Concern, in relation to 
the mismanagement of its affairs, disclose the fact that 
the frauds to which we alluded in Tuesday's Times were 
confined to employes of the institution, and in no respect 
compromise its heads. 

The amount, as we have already stated, is not yet- 
perhaps may never be — fully ascertained; but that it has 
been large, and that the abstractions had continued through 
a series of years, is conceded. 

We presume the Committee will direct an examination 
of the situation, if they have not already instituted one, 
which will be in due time submitted to the public. 

We are happy to learn that the financial condition of the 
institution is not in the l<\-ist affected by these losses, they 
having been distributed through a series of years. 



7G FROM PRIVACY TO PUBLICITY. 

The article in the Times produced much excite- 
ment in Methodist circles, and the editor of the 
Christian Advocate, Dr. Daniel Curry, who from 
the beginning had known of my investigations 
and zealously encouraged me in them, now urged 
me to unite with my colleague in a published card 
denying that there had been any frauds. Dr. 
Carlton also insisted that we ought to publish 
such denial. I expressed willingness to unite 
with him in a card saying that the frauds were 
confined to certain employees. Finally he re- 
quested me to unite with him in the following, to 
be published in the Northern Christian Advo- 
cate: 

New York, Sept. 23, 1869. 
Rev. Dr. Lore, Editor:— Say to your readers that the 
article in the New York Times of Sept. 21st, headed "A 
Painful Revelation " is a gross falsehood and slander, so 
far as it reflects upon the integrity of either, or both the 
undersigned. 

I added the following: "It is, however, proper 
to say that frauds have been committed by cer- 
tain late employees, but they have not in any 
way impaired the financial integrity of the Book 
Concern." 

Dr. Carlton refused to sign the card as thus 
amended, and said: "It would be wrong thus to 
give publicity to the matter." I replied, "it is 
already public, and a denial will only increase 
the excitement." He then brought Mr. E. L. 
Fancher, who became so insulting because I 
would not sign a card of unqualified denial of 



FROM PRIVACY TO PUBLICITY. 77 

fraud, written by himself, that I retired from my 
desk and left him sitting there. This I did to 
avoid being misrepresented by him. 

To allay the general excitement and clamor 
raised against me for refusing to make a public 
denial that any frauds had been committed, I put 
the following in the hands of the editor of the 
Christian Advocate for publication: 

New York, Sept. 24, 1869. 
Dr. Curry: — I address you this note to say that I am 
ready and willing to sign any truthful statement in regard 
to the frauds perpetrated by certain late employees of the 
Book Concern. Yours truly, 

J. LANAHAN. 

He refused to publish it, but continued to com- 
plain that I would not deny the existence of 
frauds, and, as will be seen, my refusal was ulti- 
mately made the ground of one of the charges 
preferred against me by a set of men three- 
fourths of whom were entire strangers to me. 

5. I may here state that neither directly, nor 
indirectly, in person, by third person, by writing, 
by message, or messenger, nor in any other way 
did I communicate the information upon which 
the article in the Times was based, nor at any 
time during the controversy did I communicate 
anything to the secular press. The removal of 
the defrauders broke the silence of many who had 
known of the frauds, especially among the work- 
men employed in the Concern, who now felt free 
to voice what they had long known and actually 
witnessed. I state these facts because the Chris- 



78 FROM PRIVACY TO TUBLICITY. 

tian Advocate and the Book Committee made the 
impression npon the Church, that as soon as I 
discovered the frauds, I almost proclaimed them 
as from the house top. Directly the reverse was 
true. The publication in the Times greatly inter- 
rupted my investigations. With equal particu- 
larity and emphasis I affirm that never through- 
out the whole controversy did I communicate 
anything to the secular press, though repeatedly 
charged with " inspiring " it. 



FIRST MEETING OF THE BOOK COMMITTEE 
TO INVESTIGATE CHARGES. 

THEIR REPORT. 

The Committee met at 805 Broadway, New 
York, Nov. 4th, 1869, at nine o'clock A. M., to 
investigate the alleged frauds. Rev. B. F. 
Rawlings was elected Chairman and Rev. L. M. 
Vernon, Secretary. The Agents were requested 
to report. Dr. Carlton said he would be ready 
at the next session. I thereupon presented a de- 
tailed report of the frauds committed as related 
above. When I had finished reading my report, 
Rev. G. W. Woodruff exclaimed "The whole 
church owes you a debt of thanks." But, the very 
next day he acted toward me as if he thought 
the whole church owed me censure instead of 
thanks. It was apparent that, in the meantime, 
some mysterious influence had been at work. On 
his motion a committee was appointed to prepare 
rules for the government of the Committee. The 
promptness with which the rules were reported 
showed that they had been prepared before they 
were ordered. The following is the principal 
rule adopted: 

At the request of any three members, the Committee 
shall £0 into executive session at which no person shall be 
present but the Committee and such persons as shall be 

79 



80 FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

summoned at that particular session. As it is desirous that 
the business of the Committee shall be held confidential, 
no member shall communicate any of its proceedings with- 
out consent of the Committee. 

This remarkable rule, adopted after the pre- 
sentation of my report and that of the Sub-com- 
mittee, foreshadowed much that followed. After 
its adoption, Dr. Carlton was again called on for 
a report. He responded by a verbal statement. 
The Committee then adopted the following: 

Resolved, That Dr. Carlton be requested to make such 
statements, and to present such facts and evidence as he 
may please concerning the matters before the Committee, 
and that he call on such persons as may give the Com- 
mittee facts in the case. 

The above brought no response. 

About this time S. J. Goodenough addressed 
several letters to the Committee, advising them 
how to proceed. He also wrote several abusive 
and threatening letters to me, to which I made 
no reply. I saw that a plot had been formed to 
get up a personal controversy. Rev. George TV. 
Woodruff also became especially offensive to me 
personally. He asked me numerous questions, 
many of which had no relation to the matters 
treated in my report, nor before the Committee. 
His manner was tantalizing, but I answered his 
questions as well as I could, taking no notice of 
his offensive words and manner. 

Finally he said, " I have one more question to 
ask; it is a very delicate question and I prefer 
not to ask it, but my duty requires that I ask it." 



FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. SI 

I urged him to ask his question and not continue 
to trifle with iny feelings. He then said, " It is a 
very delicate question; I wish the Committee 
would order me to ask it." Dr. Slicer replied, 
" How can the Committee order a question when 
they do not know what it is? " Again I requested 
him to ask his " delicate question " and said 
"stop dragging your iron harrow over my feel- 
ings." In a dramatic way he turned about and 
pointing his finger at me said with much earnest- 
ness, " I notify you in advance that if you deny 
it, I will prove it." 

Receiving no protection from the Chairman, 
who really seemed to be in sympathy with Mr. 
Woodruff, I expressed my estimate of his con- 
duct, and disgusted with his words and behavior 
left the room and building, and made the above 
record. I had not said that I would resign, 
but a Committee of three was promptly appoint- 
ed to call on me and ascertain whether I intend- 
ed to return. I soon discovered that the affair 
was a plot to cause me to resign in disgust. I 
also learned that with the approval of some of 
the Committee, Dr. Carlton had already spoken 
to a person to take my place. Under the advice 
of friends, I determined to return to the Commit- 
tee, and maintain my charges, regardless of any 
treatment I might receive. Bishop Janes ap- 
peared before the Committee, and Mr. Woodruff 
was made to see that he had over-acted, and pre- 
sented a paper unsigned, of which the following 
is a copy: 



82 FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

Mr. President, I wish to say to the Committee that I was 
entirely misunderstood by Dr. Lanahan and the members 
of the Committee in the matter of my asking a question. 
I ought to have propounded my question without any 
accompanying remarks, and the reason I made the accom- 
panying remarks was that I did not wish to take Dr. 
Lanahan by surprise. In this I was unfortunate, and so 
unfortunate that I do not wonder that Dr. Lanahan should 
have been offended, but I wish distinctly to declare that 
I had not the remotest intention to wound his feelings, or 
do the Committee wrong. 

Did not wish to take me by surprise ! 

He never asked the " delicate question." This 
was the first out-cropping of much like it that 
followed in the numerous meetings of the Com- 
mittee. 

Although my report and that of the Sub-com- 
mittee now had been in the hands of the Commit- 
tee several days, and although Dr. Carlton had 
not made any report though twice requested, 
the Committee adopted the following: 

Whereas, Dr. Lanahan, one of the Agents at New York, 
declared before this Committee that there had been fraud, 
theft, corruption and defalcation in the affairs of the Book 
Concern, therefore 

Resolved, that we respectfully request Dr. Lanahan to 
present at the earliest possible time all the facts in his 
possession, by which the character and extent of the fraud, 
theft, corruption and defalcation can be determined and 
traced to the guilty parties. 

And whereas, Rev. James Pike, Chairman of the Sub- 
committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of the New 
York Book Concern, has stated that he is prepared to show 
fraud and embezzlement in the New York Book Concern, 
therefore 

Resolved, That Mr. Pike be requested to present at his 
earliest convenience, to this Committee, all the proofs of 
his statement. 



FIEST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. S3 

Even at this early period it was made appar- 
ent that some of the Committee were being nsed. 
One object appeared to be to get up compli- 
cations and create confusion. I had not used all 
the varied epithets contained in the above pre- 
amble, but I made no objection, because I was 
fully prepared to prove them all — every one of 
them. They wanted " all the facts in my posses- 
sion." Did somebody fear that I had facts 
which applied higher than subordinates? 

To the above I made the following reply: 

Brethren:— Appointed by the General Conference to aid 
in the management of the Book Concern, I have felt it my 
duty to lay before you a number of unpleasant facts which 
have come to my knowledge. I have found, as I believe, 
evidence of fraud and of losses to a large amount. I have 
placed before you letters and other evidence from various 
parties to substantiate my statements and have informed 
you that the parties are willing to appear before you per- 
sonally. Having done this, my duty to you in this particular 
is discharged. Whether further examination shall be made, 
and whether the interests of the Book Concern shall be 
more perfectly guarded, is for you to determine. As As- 
sistant Agent I have made all examination in my power. 
I have done all I could to remove those I deemed guilty 
and to guard the interests committed to my care. In doing 
this I have brought upon myself the undying hostility of 
those whose interests were opposed to an examination. I 
am ready at any time to give the Committee any further 
information touching the matters embraced in the papers 
already submitted, and shall continue to devote myself to 
the work assigned me by the General Conference, expecting, 
if my life is spared, to lay before that body, and before the 
entire Church, a full account <>i* such matters connected 
with the Concern as I think the great body of the preachers 
and people should know. Yours truly, 

J. LANAIIAX. 



S4 FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

After the above letter was read to the Com- 
mittee, the Chairman again asked me if I had 
"any further communication to make?" I re- 
plied, "I haA^e other facts I could present, but 
think I have presented enough, and do not desire 
to present any more at present." 

The Chairman then asked Dr. Carlton if he 
was ready to make the written report that had 
been requested. He answered that he would 
be ready that evening. When the evening came, 
he was not ready, but presented a long letter 
from S. J. Goodenough, denying his frauds, and 
requesting the Committee to appoint some of 
their members "to visit the publishing houses 
of New York to ascertain what they paid for 
paper of various grades." The following was 
promptly adopted: 

Resolved, That we appoint a committee to visit some of 
leading publishing establishments of the city to inquire the 
prices of the various qualities of paper used by them from 
1SG3 to 18G9. 

The Chair appointed Messrs. Blades, Bingham 
and Van Cleve. They refused to go on such an 
errand, and the resolution was reconsidered, 
and laid on the table. 

Failing to get a report from the Senior Agent, 
in answer to the charges contained in my report 
and that of the Sub-committee, the following 
was adopted: 

Resolved, That Dr. Carlton be requested to report the 
profits of the Printing and Bindery Departments during 
the last six years. 



FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. S5 

The promptness of the response showed that 
the report had been prepared before it was 
called for. The following is the report: 

PRINTING DEPARTMENT— DISBURSEMENTS AND 







PROFITS. 






Paid for 


Paid for 








Merchandise. 


Wages. 


Disbursements. 


Profits. 


1864 


$169,161.01 


$44,949. IS 


$223,508.71 


$30,772.45 


1S65 


133.488.42 


43,101.40 


210,022.61 


15,627.67 


1866 


219,126.16 


47,686.21 


264,641.09 


26,459.76 


1867 


150,396.71 


49,363.77 


225,807.16 


11,264.29 


1868 


130,691.87 


50,434.79 


204,648.98 


17,769.25 


1S69 


136,7S6.39 


50,475.02 


191,700.69 


8,005.58 



$939,050.56 $2S6,010.37 $1,320,329.24 $109,899.00 
BINDERY DEPARTMENT— DISBURSEMENTS AND 







PROFITS. 






Paid for 


Paid for 








Merchandise. 


Wages. 


Disbursements. 


Profits. 


1S64 


$120,889.31 


$54,065.06 


$151,710.98 


$18,908.39 


1865 


96,321.60 


42,993.99 


147,909.94 


7,024.12 


1866 


04.459.82 


52,560.27 


128,688.91 


25,146.69 


1S67 


43,9S7.28 


55,302.36 


124,405.63 


11,180.23 


1808 


45,114.28 


42,505.35 


90,961.78 


7,382.2S 


1869 


41,755.17 


48,325.88 


111,744.04 


16,617.24 



$412,527.46 $295,752.91 $755,421.28 $S6,25S.95 

I make no comment on the above remarkable 
statement, except to say, that if by "disburse- 
ments" is meant "amounts paid for merchan- 
dise" and "wages" — and I cannot think of any 
other meaning — the discrepancies are inexplica- 
ble. Any reader can judge of this by comparing 
the amounts paid, with the amounts disbursed 
in any one year. The Committee heard the 



SG FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

paper read, and ordered it to be placed 011 their 
minutes without asking a single question. The 
large amounts paid for merchandise and wages 
show the immense interests under the control of . 
Goodenough and Hoffman, who did all the pur- 
chasing for their respective departments. Were 
there ever before or since such opportunities for 
frauds by two subordinates? 

The purchase of paper alone must have aver- 
aged $120,000 per year, the vouchers for which 
were kept by Goodenough, and, as stated, the 
cashier paid on monthly statements — so-called. 
I saw the vouchers for one year, and after 
examining them, returned them to Mr. Good- 
enough. That, however, was before the charge 
of fraud was made. At a later period, it must 
be remembered, when the Sub-committee called 
for them, " they could not be furnished." 

The Committee had passed a resolution re- 
questing me to furnish a synopsis of the report I 
had made, and I presented it with the following: 

Rev. Dr. Rawlings, Chairman of the Book Committee:— I 
herewith present a synopsis of the case laid before the 
Committee. I am ready now, and shall be at any time, to 
answer any questions and to sustain the charges I have 
made, in any way the Committee may require. 

Respectfully, J. LANAHAN. 

The Committee had now been in session twelve 
days. No report having been received from Dr. 
Carlton, the following was adopted: 

Resolved, That Dr. Carlton, Agent, be requested to present 
to the Committee a full report in writing of the adminis- 



FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. S7 

tration of the affairs of the Book Concern, making special 
reference to the documents now before the Committee from 
the Assistant Agent, and also to the report of the Sub- 
committee who especially investigated the affairs of the 
New York Book Concern. 

To the above, he responded in the following 
long letter, t\ ithont date, bnt presented on the 
16th of Xovember. 

To the Book Committee. 

Dear Brethren:— In reply to your resolution handed me 
about half past eleven o'clock, asking the principal Agent to 
present to the Book Committee as early as possible a full 
report in writing of the administration of the affairs of the 
Book Concern, making special reference to the documents 
before the Committee, etc. 

I cannot reply to the document, presented by the 
Assistant Agent, in the brief time you will remain in ses- 
sion — one which has occupied his time and attention, ac- 
cording to the document itself, six months and besides, it 
would place the Agents in antagonism which I desire to 
avoid as far as possible, and besides, the events referred 
to, occurred in that part of the Concern especially com- 
mitted to his supervision. We admit our responsibility in 
the employment and dismissal of employees and I will here 
state at once why I did not discharge Mr. Goodenough when 
the Assistant Agent charged him with corruption and fraud 
in the purchase of paper. 

1. Because Mr. Goodenough had been a worthy member 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church for nearly or quite forty 
years (and still retains his membership) and during most 
of the time he had filled the several offices of Class Leader, 
Steward, Trustee, Superintendent of Sunday School, and 
was many years the Leader of the Choir in the Mulberry 
St. M. E. Church (now St. Paul) and Treasurer of the S. S. 
Union of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

I never knew a man who enjoyed the confidence of our 
church and the entire community to a greater extent than 
Samuel J. Goodenough; and besides, he has been a member 
of my family five years previous to the last General Con- 
ference and a more devoted Christian man I never knew. 



SS FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

Judge then of my surprise when he was charged with 
corruption and fraud in the purchase of materials for the 
Book Concern. 

Sometime previous to the complaint by the Assistant 
Agent, Mr. Goodenough had spoken to me of the treatment 
he had met with from Dr. Lanahan. He complained to me 
that he was treated very ungentlemanly and he could not 
consent to do business with him. 

I endeavored to persuade him that Dr. Lanahan was all 
right though his manner might be a little different from 
ours. This being the state of feeling between the Assist- 
ant Agent and Mr. Goodenough, the Superintendent of the 
Binding Department, I thought it wise to take a little time 
to look into the matter myself lest prejudice might have 
something to do in the business. 

A few days passed and Dr. Lanahan said, if I did not 
discharge Mr. Goodenough, he would leave the house. Mr. 
Goodenough knowing the feeling of Dr. Lanahan said he 
would relieve me from all embarrassment and accordingly 
forwarded to me his resignation. 

2. As to the commissions paid advertising agents, we 
can only say there are twenty-six agents, who procure ad- 
vertisements for our periodicals and we have paid in no 
instance more than the usual commissions. As evidence, 
there are but two papers in the United States that do not 
pay commissions and not one religious paper, and while 
some allow but 20 per cent., which is our uniform price, 
others allow 25 and 30 per cent, and some will pay agents 
almost any amount. 

3. As to interest on bank deposits, etc., we refer you to 
the letters and papers of the President of the National Shoe 
and Leather Bank, where the accounts are kept 

4. The discrepancy between the books kept by the Agents 
of the several Book Depositories, grew out of a misappre- 
hension of the Agents of the Depositories, by which they 
charged themselves twice with certain sales when they 
received pay but once, and this occurred in the following 
manner: 

When they exchanged our books for books of other 
houses, they reported them as sales, and botb were charged 
to them on our books, whereas they received the cash for 
but one sale, and when the mistake was ascertained, the 
matter was carefully looked into and the error corrected, 



FIKST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. S9 

the Agents being fully satisfied that it was nothing more or 
less than a simple difference in the keeping of the accounts 
as above stated. 

"Are the accounts accurately and economically kept?" 
We answer they are — but if the Committee can devise a 
better method— we shall be perfectly willing to adopt it, as 
we do not deem to be so perfect in this, or any other 
Department of the House as not to listen to suggestions of 
wisdom and experience. 

" There were found several entries in the Petty Cash Book 
for which no vouchers could be found." 

The only explanation we can give to this question is that 
the vouchers after having been examined by Dr. Lanahan, 
were mislaid, as the cashier paid no bills without a voucher, 
and the principal book-keeper says they were regularly 
filed. 

7. The bills for paper were paid on monthly statements 
certified to be correct by Mr. Goodenough, after the 
paper was weighed and counted by another party, and his 
report compared with the original bills, which were then 
filed and kept to be seen by the Agents when called for, 
which was done as often as they deemed it necessary, and 
notwithstanding the Sub-committee report they could not 
be found when called for, there is abundant proof of their 
existence, as both the Agents have seen and examined them 
for one year, at least, and the Assistant Agent admits that 
he has found all of them for several years, only one year's 
bills being necessary, and we have no doubt they can be 
found. 

S. Four bills in the Bindery department were found to 
be incorrect, but these cases were clerical errors and such 
as were liable to occur, and do occur in the best conducted 
business houses. In one case the sum was $2.50, which 
was promptly refunded when the error was pointed out, 
and in the other case .$10, which will probably be returned 
soon. The other two bills were found to be correct as to 
the amount, the error occurring in transcribing the number 
of pounds from the books. 

THOS. CARLTON. 

After repeated and formal calls made verbally 
ami by resolutions, the above was presented on 



[)0 PIKST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

the twelfth day of the Committee's meeting, 
during which time from twenty to thirty ses- 
sions had been held (the Committee meeting two 
and three times each day), and was all that was 
ever gotten from the Senior Agent, who had 
been at the head of the Book Concern eighteen 
years and six months; and that too after I had 
communicated to him from day to day, and from 
week to week during six months, every discovery 
I had made. When I overwhelmed Goodenough 
and Hoffman with positive evidence of their 
falsehoods and frauds, he was present but said 
not a word. The Committee, however, received 
his letter without a word of inquiry or complaint, 
and as will be seen, endorsed his management of 
the Book Concern. 

All through my investigations it was apparent 
that Goodenough and Hoffman had a mysterious 
grip upon Dr. Carlton, by which they compelled 
him to stand for their defense. What it was 1 
could only guess. It may have been some mat- 
ters in connection with the gigantic oil compa- 
nies in which they were all yoked together. 

The Committee now began to talk of the re- 
port they should make to the Church as to the 
result of their investigations. It was repeatedly 
said that it would not be safe to name the ac- 
cused parties, as they might be sued for slander. 
This kind of talk among certain of the Commit- 
tee became so common that it was referred to in 
Zion's Herald of December 2, 1869. When com- 
menting on the report, after it was published, 



FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 91 

the Herald said: "There seems to have been 
a timidity on the part of the Committee based 
perhaps npon two fears, one was a threat of 
prosecution for libel if they told the facts con- 
cerning certain guilty parties, and the other, 
the more honorable one, of disliking to rake 
open before a curious world what should be 
kept as secret as possible." They might, at 
least, have quoted what my report said of the 
frauds of Goodenough and Hoffman, both of 
whom I had named. But they were very timid 
in dealing with "Brother Goodenough" and 
Mr. Hoffman, especially the former. 
The following is their report: 

We, the Book Committee, appointed by the General Con- 
ference of 1SG8, being convened in New York, to attend to 
the publishing interests of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
have had our attention called to alleged losses and frauds 
in the New York Book Concern, and after careful investi- 
gation and serious inquiry into the business of the House 
during a session of two weeks, and availing ourselves of 
labors and investigations of a Sub-committee previously 
appointed, have reached the following judgment, which, 
for the information of the Church and of the Conferences 
we embody in the following resolutions, to wit: 

Resolved, 1. That it is our deliberate judgment that the 
last exhibit of the Agents is a true and reliable statement 
of the responsibility and solvency of the Book Concern of 
New York. 

2. That though the Agents have bought paper and other 
materials for the Printing Department mainly through 
paper dealers, or middle men, yet it does not appear by the 
facts before the Committee that the Concern has suffered 
any serious loss by such mode of making purchases. 

3. That the investigation of the affairs and business of 
the Bindery has satisfied the Committee that there has 
been great mismanagement in this department, and that 
serious losses have occurred therein. 



92 FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

4. That the general management and business of the Con- 
cern in all matters involving its credit or integrity is such 
as to command the confidence of the public. 

B. F. RAWLINGS, Chairman. 

L. M. VERNON, Secretary. 

After the above report, the following was 
adopted: 

Resolved, 1. The Committee recommend that the receiv- 
ing and shipping of goods be by an entry clerk, and the 
auditing of all bills by a proper auditor of the house. 

2. That the time of all employees be reported to the 
heads of the departments as Bindery, Printing and Clerical 
force, and a regular pay-roll be made out and the money 
paid by some other person than the heads of the depart- 
ments. 

3. The Retail departments of the Concerns, East and 
West, shall be put under such checks in the charging of 
stock and crediting sales as shall fully protect it from 
unwarrantable exposure to mismanagement and fraud. 

Are not the above " recommendations " a con- 
fession that none of these safeguards existed? 
I ask the ministers and members of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church whether it was possible 
properly to conduct the immense business of the 
house without them? Goodenough and Hoff- 
man were their own "entry clerks," kept their 
own "pay-roll," "audited" their own bills, with 
no more oversight than there is oversight of any 
readers of this narrative when they purchase 
a ticket to travel on a railroad! The "no 
serious loss" and "great mismanagement and 
serious loss " declared in the above report, were 
the result of the absence of all those safeguards. 
Yet the Committee endorsed and commended 



FIRST MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 93 

the management! Throughout the proceedings, 
the purpose of the majority to shield the Senior 
Agent from blame was apparent. But when 
the report was made public, his responsibility 
was made so obvious to the mind of the Church 
that a demand was made for all the facts. 
Then commenced the formation of a powerful 
combination to conceal all, glorify Thomas Carl- 
ton, whitewash Goodenough and Hoffman, and 
crush me, as will appear in the further parts 
of this narrative. 



SECOND MEETING OF COMMITTEE. 

The first report, stating that there had been 
"no serious loss" in the Printing Department, 
but " great mismanagement and serious loss " in 
the Bindery Department, created a widespread 
demand throughout the Church for the facts 
upon which the report was made. The Massa- 
chusetts State Convention of the M. E. Church, 
held at Boston, December 15th, 1869, adopted 
the following: 

Whereas, Painful and alarming rumors have spread far 
and wide of defalcations in the management of our Book 
Concern in New York, and 

Whereas, The late report of the Book Committee con- 
cerning the same, while showing that these rumors are not 
groundless, is manifestly imperfect and unsatisfactory; 
therefore, 

Resolved, That we respectfully call upon the said Book 
Committee for a full report of such facts within their 
knowledge as are necessary to a clear understanding of 
the manner in which the great interest of the Church has 
been managed. 

Resolved, That we urgently request the Sub-committee 
of Investigation to zealously pursue their labor to the extent 
necessary to a full understanding of the affairs of the 
Concern. 

The following was adopted by the Texas Con- 
ference: 

Whereas, The Book Committee made a report at its late 
session, in New York, in relation to alleged losses and 
94 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 95 

frauds in the New York Book Concern, which is vague 
and indefinite in its terms, therefore, 

Resolved, That it is the judgment of this Conference that 
the said report should be reconsidered by the Committee 
with a view to a more explicit declaration of its investi- 
gations. 

Resolved, That the honor of the Church and the public 
faith in our Book Concern, demand the vigorous conduct 
of such investigation, and the fearless and faithful prose- 
cution of criminal parties in the courts of the Church, or 
of the country, as tbe results of such investigation may 
demand. 

Resolved, The Secretary is ordered to forward to the 
Book Committee a copy of the above resolutions, duly 
certified. 

GEO. W. HORNER, Secretary. 

Texas Annual Conference for 1870. 

It now became obvious that the Committee 
would be compelled to explain their brief and 
evasive report, which, instead of allaying, in- 
creased the excitement started by the article 
in the New York Times, and January 6, 1870, 
Kev. C. Brooks published in the Christian Ad- 
vocate a long and labored article in defense of 
"The Keport of the Book Committee." After 
advising that the Committee meet again and 
agree upon "a satisfactory report," he says of 
the former meeting, " there was no lack of dili- 
gence on the part of the Committee in the en- 
deavors to ascertain the facts, the amount of 
losses, and the perpetrators of the frauds." 
As to the "amount of losses," I had stated that 
they had averaged from $25,000 to $30,000 a year 
for ten years; and as to "the perpetrators of the 
frauds," it required no "endeavors" to ascertain 
that, as I had named them in my report, and 



9G SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

they had appeared before the Committee to deny 
their frauds. Yet, one might infer from the 
above that they were unknown. 

Dr. Brooks next refers to the authority of the 
Committee to "suspend an Agent," and makes 
the following strange statement: 

Xo committee of prudent men would take such a step 
unless in an extreme case— not unless the Concern was at 
stake. Very few even of thoughtful business men have 
counted the cost of suspending, even for a few days, one 
of the Agents at New York, just at this time; and I say it 
deliberately and fully understand whereof I speak— such 
a measure would cause a paralysis extending to the remot- 
est missionary station in the Church. 

As I had nothing to do with the Missionary 
Society matters and had not in any way referred 
to them up to that time, the above could not 
have been intended to apply to me; not only so, 
but subsequently, I was twice suspended, and 
the first time kept in that degrading position 
five months, and no "paralysis" came to the 
Church, nor to any missionary station. Was it 
beginning to dawn on the apprehension of Dr. 
Brooks and his associates that if the Church 
should get the facts which they had concealed, 
another Agent at Kew York than John Lana- 
han would have to be suspended? Evidently 
members of the Book Committee had been made 
to believe that the suspension of the Senior 
Agent would cause the predicted "paralysis"! 
That appears to be the only explanation of the 
above extraordinary statement. And it implies 
that in some way they had been made to believe 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 97 

the great Missionary Society of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church was dependent on the Bev. 
Thomas Carlton. 

But another way of escape was deliberately 
planned to save the great interests of Method- 
ism from "a paralysis extending to the remot- 
est missionary station of the Church," and that 
was, by summoning the Committee to meet again 
to declare first, that there had been neither 
fraud, loss, nor mismanagement. Second, to re- 
quire the Assistant Agent to unite in the denial, 
or at least promise to say nothing, and make no 
report to the General Conference. Third, if he 
refuse, and persist in his allegations, induce 
Goodenough to sue for libel and thus frighten 
him into silence. Fourth, if these fail to bring 
him into submission, get up charges against him 
and suspend him from his office, and if the 
Bishops refuse to acquiesce in his expulsion, em- 
ploy the official press and threaten to abolish 
the life tenure of the Episcopal office. That 
these steps followed each other in regular order 
as effect follows cause, will be made plain in the 
further facts of this narrative. 

On the 12th of January, 1870, the Committee 
assembled again, professedly to examine, but it 
was soon made apparent that the real object was 
to retract their former report, get me out of the 
Book Concern, and whitewash the defrauders. 
The following letter which I found on the floor 
of the Agents' office early in the meeting, shows 
that correspondence had been had which fore- 



9S SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

boded evil to me. Its significance justified my 
copying, after which I left it where I found it. 

New York, December 22(1. 1869. 
Rev. F. A. Blades: 

Dear Brother.— I am more and more of opinion that Dr. 
Lanahan lias injured the Book Concern a hundred-fold 
more than any other person. Of course he has not intended 
to do it, but his good intentions have not saved him from 
doing a world of mischief to our time honored Book 
Concern. 

Yours truly, GEO. W. WOODRUFF. 

The previous meeting of the Committee, at 
winch it had been unanimously declared that 
there had been " great mismanagement and ser- 
ious loss " adjourned Nov. 18th. Thus, in thirty- 
four days, the writer of the above had under- 
gone a complete revolution of opinion. Perhaps 
the demands for the facts which were "more 
and more" coming from different parts of the 
Church contributed to produce the change. 

The Committee adopted the rule of the former 
meeting, providing for secret sessions, and that 
no member should communicate any of its pro- 
ceedings without the consent of the Committee. 
Eev. Alexander McLane, who had served as 
stenographer during the latter part of the for- 
mer meeting, appeared again. I objected to 
his further serving in that capacity on the 
ground that he had in various ways made him- 
self a zealous partisan, and had declared in the 
New York preachers' meeting that there had 
been no fraud or mismanagement, and that " the 
animus " of my charges was " to promote lay del- 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 99 

egation." I insisted that the delicate duties of 
a stenographer required that he should be free 
from all bias, much more from partisanship. My 
objection, however, received no attention, and he 
was continued. Dr. Carlton had employed him 
at $8.00 per day. Rev. J. W. Eaton, of Troy 
Conference, was also employed by Dr. Carlton, at 
the same compensation. . Both of those gentle- 
men became earnest advocates of the course and 
action of the Book Committee and of Dr. Carlton. 
I was unable to appreciate the need of two steno- 
graphers, but Dr. Carlton did, and that settled 
the matter. As he controlled the money of the 
Book Concern he could use it as he pleased, and 
he did use it freely. 

When the reading of the testimony taken at 
the Xovember meeting was commenced, Rev. G. 
TV. Woodruff stated, that "Mr. E. L. Fancher, 
attorney for the Book Concern," was in the 
building and desired to be present and hear the 
testimony read. I objected on the ground that 
Mr. Fancher had denounced me in public and in 
private, and had grossly insulted me at my own 
desk, after thrusting himself upon me for an 
interview, because I refused to sign a paper, 
written by liimself, for publication, which de- 
nial that Hi ere ha d been any fraud in the 
Book Concern. Dr. Carlton advocated his ad- 
mission, and of course Dr. Carlton's wish was 
granted. If Mr. Fancher was "attorney for the 
Book Concern," then he was attorney for Carlton 
& Lanahan, as, properly speaking, they were, for 



100 SECOND .MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

the time being, the Book Concern, just as Messrs. 
Hunt & Eaton are now. Thus, Mr. Fancher be- 
came first the secret, and then the open prosecu- 
tor of one of his own clients ! Such conduct in a 
civil court would have disbarred him, if not some- 
thing worse. Kesolutions to allow me to employ 
counsel were twice voted down. I then determ- 
ined to put myself upon the Committee's records 
and presented the following: 

To the Book Committee: January 27, 1S70. 

Brethren.— As you have invited Mr. Fancher to sit with 
the Committee, as an attorney, to hear the testimony read 
that was taken at your November meeting, I respectfully 
ask the privilege of inviting an attorney to be present at 
the same time for the same purpose. 

Respectfully, J. LANAHAN. 

The above was promptly laid upon the table. 

It was soon made clear that Mr. Fancher had 
been brought there not "to hear the testimony 
taken at the former meeting read," but to assist 
the Committee to get me out of the Book Con- 
cern. The following was adopted: "Kesolved, 
that Mr. Fancher be requested to act with and 
assist the Committee, and the Sub-committee, in 
the further prosecution of their work." " Prose- 
cution " was the right word to use. Kev. James 
Pike, Chairman of the Sub-committee, refused to 
serve with Mr. Fancher on the ground that Mr. 
Fancher could have no legitimate connection 
with the Committee, and that the Committee had 
no authority for bringing him into their proceed- 
ings. The promptness with which Dr. Pike was 



SECOXD ^lEETIXG OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 101 

excused showed that they were quite willing to 
get him out of the way. His report at the for- 
mer meeting had made him an undesirable inves- 
tigator. He and Dr. Slicer presented the follow- 
ing protest: 

The undersigned respectfully enter their protest against 
the action of the Book Committee, by which it invited the 
Attorney of the Book Concern to assist the Committee in its 
investigations into the alleged mismanagement of the Book 
Concern. 

1. Because that action needlessly disregarded the feel- 
ings and protest of the Assistant Book Agent in a manner 
calculated to embarrass him in his intercourse with the 
Committee. 

2. Because we fear that the Committee Lave by that act 
subjected themselves to the imputation of having in effect 
employed the counsel in the case to assist in conducting 
what is substantially the prosecution, which we apprehend, 
will excite and alarm the Church and bring odium upon the 
Committee. 

H. SLICER AND JAMES PIKE. 

One might think that in view of the above 
protest Mr. Fancher's sense of propriety would 
have caused him to retire from the Committee's 
proceedings, but he did "not stand on techni- 
cality." He had been brought there "to assist 
the Committee in the further prosecution of its 
work," and expected a reward, and he got it, 
receiving $1,000.00, though for a blind, the 
entry was made in the books of the Concern 
"for ten years services." The ridiculousness of 
this appears on its surface. How much more 
he received for after services I never learned. 

After all the testimony had been read, a reso- 
lution wis adopted, in secret session, authorizing 



102 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

me to bring in an attorney "provided lie be a 
Methodist." 1 replied: 

New York, January 31, 1870. 
To the Book Committee: 

Brethren.— I have received a communicatioD from your 
secretary informing me that you propose now, at this stage 
of the proceedings, to allow me to bring in counsel, " pro- 
vided he be a Methodist." I have to say in reply, that my 
application for counsel, and resolutions to grant that appli- 
cation were twice rejected at the time when Mr. Fancher 
was admitted to the meetings of the Committee, and the 
testimony was as yet unread. I wished my counsel to be 
present during the reading of the testimony. Your invi- 
tation, coming as it does after the reading of the testimony 
has been completed, seems to me most extraordinary. That 
part of the proceedings which a legal adviser should have 
heard has already been disposed of. 

I had not thought of the admission of counsel to the ses- 
sions of the Committee at all, and was more than surprised 
when the application of Mr. Fancher to be present was 
presented and granted. I informed the Committee that 
Mr. Fancher had made himself a partisan from the outset 
of my investigation, and had spoken strongly in public and 
private against me. He was nevertheless admitted, after 
a speech from my colleague in favor of his admission. 

It needs but a moment's consideration to show the utter 
unfairness and injustice of this action. You have exacted 
of me what was not required even of the expelled employees 
who have wronged the House. My statements, confirmed 
by the written testimony of respectable merchants were 
refused, until, at the cost of great inconvenience, I had 
brought the parties in person. This has not been demanded 
of the expelled parties. They have been allowed to offer 
their own words without any corroboration, except second 
and third hand testimony, which can be shown to be false. 

In the name of the Church, whose endangered interests 
I represent, and whose servant I am, I here enter my 
solemn protest against these wrongs and to that Church 
I shall make my appeal for justice. 

Very respectfully, J. LAX AI IAN. 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 103 

Failing in their efforts to force me into sub- 
serviency with their plans of concealment they 
adopted the following — which was offered by 
Be v. J. H. Moore: 

Whereas, Our Book Agents have not been under charges 
before this Committee, and whereas, they are not convicted 
of any wrong involving their official or moral character, 
therefore, 

Resolved, That in the judgment of this Committee, it 
would be highly improper in them, or either of them, to 
go to the General Conference with a statement of this case, 
the Committee having carefully examined and decided the 
whole case. (Journal of Committee, February 9, 1ST0.) 

What was nry duty in such case? I had read 
of men who rather than betray their trust and 
sacrifice the truth, had laid their heads upon the 
block and smiled as the axe came down; and of 
feeble women, who in like circumstances, braved 
the stake and went to heaven wrapped in robes 
of fire. And shoidd I, when no such result was 
impending, and no such sacrifice was possible, 
merely to retain the office of Book Agent, betray 
a sacred trust and disgrace myself in my own 
eyes? What think ye, pastors and laymen of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church? If that was not 
a glaring attempt to smother the truth, what 
was it? 

Finding that they could not by threats of sus- 
pension and expulsion drive me into obedience 
to their plot of suppression, and evidently fear- 
ing thai by further examination I should find 
additional evidence of new and much greater 
frauds, they adopted the following: 



104 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

Resolved, That hereafter, if anything shall occur in the 
management of the Book Concern that may require special 
Inquiry or investigation, such inquiry or investigation shall 
be made conjointly by the Agents, assisted by the Attorney 
for the Book Concern. 

Where did they get authority for such action? 
Certainly not in any law of the Church. The 
entanglements in which they had become in- 
volved made them see and feel that they must be 
a law unto themselves, and act upon the prin- 
ciple that self-protection is the first law of na- 
ture! I had not asked for assistance, nor did 
I need it, especially of that kind. If the Senior 
Agent, who had been at the head of the estab- 
lishment nearly twenty years needed it, the Com- 
mittee should have confined their resolution to 
him. They had reason to know that the attor- 
ney would gladly render him any " assistance " 
he might need, without request or order from 
them. There was method in all this madness! 

But it evidently occurred to the Committee 
that there was another important point to be 
guarded; their own Sub-committee could not be 
trusted, especially with Eev. James Pike, an- 
other "enemy of the Book Concern," at its head, 
who had reported several ugly things, among 
them the loss of f 21,000.00 in the single item of 
leather, and the following was adopted: 

Resolved, That the Sub-committee be and is hereby in- 
structed to avail themselves of the assistance of the same 
parties in any investigation or inquiry they may be under 
the necessity of making. 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK. COMMITTEE. 103 

I affirm that never before was it heard of that 
a Sub-committee, appointed to examine accounts 
that were charged to be fraudulent, were re- 
quired "to avail themselves of the assistance" 
of the party responsible for the accounts. And 
why should the Sub-committee be required to 
avail themselves of the assistance of Mr. Fan- 
cher, the especial friend and advocate of the 
party whose accounts were to be examined? It 
is not strange that Eev. Jas. Pike, Chairman, 
refused to act under such requirements. But, 
as if all this might not accomplish the end in 
view, and as if they could not trust themselves, 
nor the Sub-committee, the following was adopt- 
ed: 

Resolved, That the duties of this Committee, and of the 
Sub-committee are now ended concerning the books and 
papers of the Book Concern of New York bearing- date up 
to, and prior to December 1, 1S69. 

Dr. Carlton advocated the adoption of this res- 
olution, and insisted that the continuance of the 
examination would interrupt the business of 
the house! If any purely secular corporation, 
against whose management charges had been 
made, were to adopt such resolutions and meth- 
ods, what would the public say? And what when 
it was the publishing house of the Church! Why 
was the Committee so careful to specify the 
exact date, "up to, and prior to," behind which 
no investigation of "books and papers" should 
be made, namely, " December 1st, 1809 " ? They 
were manifestly acting under instructions. I 



10G SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

had laid before them important facts prior to 
that date, and in this narrative. I shall present 
those facts with many others of date more than 
twelve years "prior to December 1st, 1869." 
These men were in wily hands. Whatever they 
were told to do, they did, not for a moment sup- 
posing- that their acts ever would be brought to 
the light of day. And in all probability they 
never should but for the declaration of Dr. C. C. 
McCabe, quoted above, that the church "never 
lost a dollar by one of its Agents." He had been 
making much stronger statements for twenty 
years. Of course he, like many others who knew 
nothing of the facts, believed what he said. 

Notwithstanding the Committee had declared: 
"the testimony not only failed to establish the 
evidence of fraud, defalcation, or corruption, but 
likewise failed to establish the allegation of 
losses"; thus giving the Agents (Agent), Goode- 
nough and Hoffman a full and sweeping endorse- 
ment, their last act, before final adjournment, 
was the adoption of the following, which was 
offered by Eev. F. A. Blades: 

Resolved, That whatever irregularities have been dis- 
covered by the investigation before the Committee, are the 
result of confiding too much in subordinates. We hereby 
call the attention of the Agents to this fact, and urge upon 
them greater personal vigilance in personally superintend- 
ing the business of the Concern. 

Was there ever before, or since, such contra- 
diction? More than once, yes, many times, dur- 
ing the six meetings) of that Committee, I found 
myself whispering to myself: "Is this the way 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 107 

it was clone in the old Inquisition, where truth 
and justice were trampled? " The protests of the 
minority amounted to nothing. As Dr. Slicer 
expressed it in his address before the Baltimore 
Conference "I had jnst as well whistled to a 
whirlwind, or talked to a tornado." The Com- 
mittee had met for a very definite purpose, and 
all their proceedings, under the guide of the 
lawyer, were directed toward that purpose. 
!S"ot, indeed, an examination of the crimes of the 
defrauders, but to destroy my character, as, — 
to use their own words, — " a slanderer of the 
Book Concern and its long trusted employees," 
and send me back to my home in Baltimore in 
disgrace. After clothing Mr. Fancher with au- 
thority "to act with and assist in the further 
prosecution of the work," the Committee ordered 
a recess, evidently to give Mr. Fancher an oppor- 
tunity to bring the "work" into a specific shape. 
When the recess ended, a resolution was adopted 
to stop the further investigation of mismanage- 
ment and fraud, and the following distinct, law- 
yer-] ike propositions were submitted: 

1. With respect to the management and conduct of the 
Book Agents, or cither of them, has there heen any fraud 
or corruption? 

•_'. lias there been any fraud or corruption in any em- 
ployee of the Book Concern? 

3. Has there heen heretofore anything in the conduct of 
the Agents, or either of them, injurious to the interests of 
tlic Book Concern? 

4. is there anything in the disposition of either of the 
Agents, "i- any want of harmony between them, which calls 
for the act Ion of i lie ( 'oininii tee? 



108 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

It was easy to see the direction in which these 
questions pointed; but I listened in silence, not 
thinking so much of myself, as of the Church of 
which those men were the representatives! The 
minority cast glances at each other, as if to ask: 
"what next?" The first two questions were 
quickly disposed of, the Committee deciding that 
there had been "no fraud or corruption on the 
part of either of the Agents, nor of any em- 
ployee." 

The third question was taken up, and the ob- 
ject for which the Committee had met was made 
perfectly transparent, namely, to find ground 
for charges upon which to suspend me, and if 
that failed, by personal appeals and threats of 
suspension to bring me into acquiescence with 
their plans of suppression and concealment 
from the Church of the iniquities that had been 
committed. 

As the third question related to "the Agents, 
or either of them," the reasonable course, one 
might think, should have been to begin with 
the Senior Agent, to ascertain whether he had 
" done anything injurious to the interests of the 
Book Concern," especially as their previous re- 
port had declared that "there had been great 
mismanagement and serious loss," and more 
especially, as that report was based upon the 
facts I had laid before them, showing that the 
"great mismanagement and serious loss" had 
extended through a long series of years before I 
became one of the Agents. But they were not 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 109 

after the senior agent — I was the object of their 
relentless persecution. 

Although they had in their hands my long list 
of the facts of fraud, and the Church papers and 
the secular press had been filled with the discus- 
sion of the subject for many weeks, the Com- 
mittee now called in numerous persons to ascer- 
tain whether I had said anything on the subject 
to others than themselves. Among those called 
were Doctors John McClintock, President, and B. 
H. Nadal, Professor, of Drew Theological Semi- 
nary, to both of whom I had told all I knew, and 
they so stated. Their next search was to ascer- 
tain whether I had inspired the criticisms of the 
secular press. For that purpose they requested 
Mr. George W. Jones, proprietor of the New 
York Times, to appear. Kev. George W. Wood- 
ruff said to Mr. Jones: "Are you not afraid to 
attack the great Methodist Episcopal Church?" 
He replied : " I am not attacking the Methodist 
Church, but the rogues in the Church.'' 

Failing in their hunt for something against 
me, and perhaps supposing that I would not dare 
present any new evidence of mismanagement 
and fraud, they varied their proceedings by ask- 
ing the Agents if they had anything to communi- 
cate? Dr. Carlton, as usual, answered that he 
Lad no communication to make. I thereupon 
presented a written statement of a false entry in 
the ledger of $20,900, charged to the wealthy 
Banking House of Brown Brothers & Co., and 



110 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

charged off as a loss; which I characterized as 
"something more than improper."* 

L also presented a report showing- a discrep- 
ancy in the wages account of S. J. Groodenough of 
$1,900. The facts of this case are: I had in my 
employ an accountant, whom I had long and 
well known, to examine the wages account in 
the Printing Department for six consecutive 
years, and gave him from the account books of 
the Agents' office a statement of the amounts 
of money drawn by Goodenough. Before he 
had progressed far in the examination, he re- 
ported to me a discrepancy of $1,900 between 
the amounts that had been drawn and the 
amounts paid. I immediately reported it to the 
Book Committee then holding this second meet- 
ing, and requested a s})ecial examination of the 
discrepancy. 

Instead of giving the least attention to my 
report, the Committee referred it to Dr. Carlton. 
His practice had been to write nothing in reply 
to my charges, but to indulge in verbal state- 
ments. I, therefore, requested that he be re- 
quired to reply to this case in writing. At the 
afternoon session of the Committee, he reported 
verbally that " the discrepancy amounted to only 
two cents, which was occasioned by mistaking 
a figure 7 for a figure 9." Upon my request, the 
matter was referred to Dr. Carlton and myself, 
with the understanding that we should meet that 
evening, with Mr. Goodenough and my account- 

* For full account of this case see Appendix I. 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. HI 

ant present, the result to be reported to the Com- 
mittee the next morning. At the appointed 
hour, I and my accountant were on hand, at the 
Agents' office, only to learn, however, that Dr. 
Carlton, Goodenough and Grant, the book-keeper, 
had been there and professed to have gone over 
the matter in our absence. With what result I 
neYer learned, as Dr. Carlton made no report the 
next morning, nor did the Committee ask for one, 
or even refer to it. 

During the hours of that day a plot was de- 
vised not only to stop a further examination of 
Goodenough's wages account, but also all exami- 
nation, and that members of the Book Commit- 
tee yielded themselves willing accomplices of the 
conspiracy, the following facts show. 

The next morning, as soon as the Committee 
met, the following paper was presented: 

We. the undersigned members of the Book Committee, 
having occasion to visit the Book Concern, at 200 Mulberry 
Street last evening, had our attention called to certain 
papers lying promiscuously about the rooms of the building. 
On examination they were found to be papers of value and 
vouchers of important transactions in the Concern. On 
further inquiry, we found the confusion of the papers to 
which our attention had been called to result from the con- 
duct of a stranger known as an expert, who seemed to be 
in possession of the vouchers and making free use of them. 
We found also that the vouchers had been substantially in 
Hm> same condition several days, and the room in which 
they were found was accessible to parties interested in 
them, and consequently liable to loss. We deem it our 
duty to state these facts, leaving the Committee tit take 
such action in the premises as the case may require. 

J. 11. MOORE, C. BROOKS, 
I. S. BINGHAM, F. A. BLADES. 



112 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

Rev. L. M. Vernon was also in company with 
the above, but refused to sign their paper. 

Immediately upon the presentation of the 
above, the following resolution — in readiness for 
the occasion — was presented and adopted: 

Resolved, That hereafter, and during the pending of this 
investigation, no papers, bills or account books shall be 
subjected to examination, or handled by any one, but by 
the concurrent consent and knowledge of both the Agents, 
together with the approval and knowledge of this Com- 
mittee, except by such clerks and book-keepers as are now 
on duty in the Concern, in the regular discharge of their 
duty. 

Whilst the above was pending, I was called 
out of the Committee room by my accountant, 
who stated to me that the previous evening, 
when quitting work, he had, as was his practice, 
carefully put the papers he was examining on the 
open shelf where they had been kept, and that on 
returning that morning he found them scattered 
over the floor. I returned to the room and re- 
ported these facts to the Committee, and request- 
ed that he be permitted to make his state- 
ment to them. My request was resolutely op- 
posed by the signers of the above paper. Dr. 
Slicer seconded my request and said, "It would 
be an outrage upon all fair dealing to refuse to 
hear the accountant." Rev. J. H. Moore, who 
appeared to be at the head of the conspiracy, 
said to Dr. Slicer: "Do you want to make the 
signers of the paper liars?" Dr. Slicer replied: 
"Some person may have scattered those papers 
for a purpose." The Committee refused to hear 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 113 

niy accountant, but called in Kev. W. H. DePuy, 
who corroborated the statements of the signers 
of the paper. The Committee had no fear that 
he would "make the signers of the paper liars." 
He could be trusted, because it was not the first 
time, nor was it the last, in which he rendered 
important service to the Committee in the crises 
of their wonderful doings. 

Within two hours after the above occurrences, 
I gathered the following facts: After the pre- 
sentation of my report of the discrepancy of 
§1,900, Key. W. H. DePuy went to the old build- 
ing, 200 Mulberry Street, and told Henry Umber, 
whose business it was to lock up the house, to 
keep it open that night, and that some members 
of the Book Committee would be there between 
eight and nine o'clock. Mr. Daniel Denham, 
Cashier, and brother-in-law to Dr. Carlton, went 
to the hotel at which the aboye named members 
of the Committee stayed, and piloted them to 
200 Mulberry Street to see the "Scattered pa- 
pers." 

If "the papers had been substantially in the 
same condition several days," is it not remark- 
able that it was not reported to the Book Com- 
mittee at least one day prior to my report of the 
aboye discrepancy in Goodenough's wages ac- 
count? "Between eight and nine o'clock" at 
night, about the 13th of January, was not a 
pleasant time to go on such a mission to the old 
building on Mulberry Street. The trick was 
more bunglingly done than was usually the case, 



114 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

when W. H. DePuy was co-manager. Perhaps 
my report of the morning cansed the necessity 
for hurried action to prevent the discovery of 
additional discrepancies in the wages account of 
the much trusted Goodenough. But this is not 
all — the signers of the above paper unwittingly 
furnished additional proof of what I had previ- 
ously alleged, namely, that "papers of value, and 
vouchers of important transactions in the Con- 
cern" were not kept on file in the office of the 
Agents, but were left in the keeping of employees 
who did the purchasing of the materials. Dr. 
Carlton declared before the Committee that 
"those papers and vouchers represented several 
hundred thousand dollars." 

My presentation of the false entry in the 
ledger to "Brown Brothers & Co.," and the dis- 
crepancy in Gooclenough's wages account, ap- 
peared to anger some of the Committee, and a 
more direct personal attack was commenced. 
Rev. B. F. Rawlings, Chairman, who was always 
one of the most assuming and presuming, invited 
me out of the room, and said: "I have invited 
you out here to request you to resign." I replied, 
"I am here without my seeking, and will not 
resign, much as I dislike the place." He then 
said: "I will make the request from the Chair." 
I responded: " You may make it from a hundred 
chairs, it will have no effect upon me, come what 
may." On returning to the room, I thought I 
saw evidence that some of the Committee knew 
the object of the interview, and were anxious to 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 115 

know the result. On resuming the chair, he said : 
"Is Dr. Lanahan disposed to hush up the matter? 
If not, other things must come before us." 1 
made no reply, but fully comprehended what he 
meant by the "other things." 

H. R. Hoffman had been so thoroughly in- 
volved in contradictions when he appeared be- 
fore the Committee, at their former meeting, 
that he refused to appear at this; but, unfortu- 
nately for him and his advisers, he sent word 
by Dr. Carlton, that if the Committee desired 
any further information from him, their ques- 
tions must be propounded in writing. 

The following is from the records of the Com- 
mittee: "Messrs. Pike, Moore and Vernon were 
appointed a Committee to furnish Mr. Hoffman 
a written statement of matters connected with 
the Committee's investigation in which he is 
involved." 

Feb. 1st, The Committee appointed to give Mr. 
Hoffman a statement on which information was 
needed from him reported the following, and a 
copy was sent to Mr. Hoffman, as follows: 

New York, January 30, 1ST0. - 
IT. R. Hoffman, Esq.: 

Dear Sir.— The Committee desire information from you 
on the folio win- points: 

1. The Sub-committee reported a deficit of about 1400 
dozen of skins between December, 1$67 and September 1, 
1869. How can you account for this deficit? 

2. W'Iimi accounl can yon give for 141 dozen of sheep 
skins sent from the Book Concern by your order about 
March, 1869? 

::. The bills show that you purchased in December, 1SGS, 



116 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

between twenty-five and twenty-six hundred pounds of 
nine Can you show that said glue was ever received at 
the Bindery, and if so, how was it used? 

4. It is reported to us that you bought at one time four 
yards of black velvet, at $1G per yard; at another time four 
yards, at $17 per yard. What became of it? 

5. In 18G9 six pieces of shirting muslin came to the 
Book Concern from Lord & Taylor. Can you show how it 
was used? 

G. On at least two occasions, Mr. Myers receipted for 
more money than he received. Can you give the reasons 
for these facts? 

7. Several other discrepancies appear between the 
amounts due on wages and the amounts receipted for. Can 
you explain these discrepancies? 

S. Can you explain the use made of various sums of 
money drawn from the Bindery Department for miscel- 
laneous articles? 

9. Can you give any definite account of the amount of 
gold sweepings accruing in the Bindery Department 
monthly or yearly, or their value? 

10. It appears that the names of several parties were 
retained on the pay-roll after they had ceased to be em- 
ployed, as shown by the books of the head of the folding 
department. Can you show the propriety of such things? 

11. Do you know of any record showing that goods bought 
for the Bindery were duly received, and if received, that 
they corresponded in quality and quantity with the goods 
purchased? 

12. Can you give an account of a certain lot of morocco, 
about forty dozen, purchased by you of Mr. Lutkins for 
the Bindery, which were afterward exposed for sale in a 
tin-shop on Fearl Street, 295%? 

13. You are shown by parties who have been before us 
to have received commissions on materials purchased for 
the Bindery. On what ground do you justify this pro- 
cedure? 

Respectfully, L, M. VERNON, 

Sec. of Book Committee. 

No answer was received to any of the above 
questions, and the Committee said nothing about 
Hoffman's silence. 



SECOXD MEETING OF BOOK CO^ESIITTEE. 117 

A Sub-committee previously appointed, pre- 
sented for adoption the following report to be 
sent to the Annual Conferences. Without as- 
signing any reasons for the change, they revers- 
ed the decision of the preceding November, and 
all the following questions were answered in the 
negative : 

1. In respect to the management or conduct of the 
Agents, or either of them, has there been anything fraudu- 
lent or corrupt in the Book Concern? 

2. Has there been anything fraudulent or corrupt in the 
practice or conduct of any employee of the Book Concern 
so far as the Printing Department is concerned? 

3. Has there been anything fraudulent or corrupt in the 
practice or conduct of any employee in the Book Concern 
in respect to the Bindery? 

These questions in the estimation of the Gommittee em- 
braced all the allegations made against the Book Concern, 
its Agents and employees; and in the settlement of them 
every item in any way affecting the Concern was most 
fully investigated. The Committee could not find other- 
wise than that the testimony not only failed to establish 
the evidence of fraud, defalcation, or corruption, but like- 
wise the allegation of losses. 

They could not have given the management by 
the Agents, and the faithfulness and integrity 
of all the employees a stronger endorsement. 
The object of this sweeping denial was to escape 
being questioned if they again admitted that 
any wrongs had been committed. 

Contrary to all custom, the minority had been 
denied representation on the Committee, and 
gave notice that they would present a dissenting 
report the next day. The following are some of 
the reasons they assigned for their dissent: 



118 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

We, tlii- undersigned members of the Book 
Committee, respectfully dissent from the report 
of the majority, adopted yesterday, for the fol- 
lowing reasons: 

1. Because nothing lias conic before us during our present 
session to relieve our convictions of losses and mismanage- 
ment in the Book Concern, so insufficiently expressed in 
the Committee's report in November last. 

L!. Because, from testimony before the Committee, it 
appears thai the Book Agents, U>\- a series of years, pur- 
chased a very large part of their paper from or through a 
middle-man or paper broker, who represented himself to 
paper manufacturers as controlling the purchase of paper 
for the Book Concern, and whose relation to one of the 
Agents gave special credibility to his representations, and 
who also represented himself to the Book Concern as the 
accredited agent of certain leading manufacturers. This 
method of purchases appears to us discreditable, and almost 
of necessity, damaging to the house. 

3. Because the testimony before the Committee shows 
that this system actually was damaging to the Book Con- 
cern. The Agents have bought since 1860 from or through 
the above named middle-man paper to the amount of nearly 
£700.000: from him direct about .$350,000, through him as 
a broker about $350,000. The " statement " of the Assistant 
Agent to the Committee, corroborated, as it is, by docu- 
ments drawn from the books of the dealers referred to, 
and also from the Order Book of the Printing Department 
of the Methodist Book Concern, clearly shows that on 
sales to the Book Concern, amounting to $63,699.16, between 
July, 1867, and August, 1868, the profit accruing to the 
above-named " broker " was $6,S05.04; and that during the 

same period his commissions on purchases made from ,* 

amounted to $3,040.28. Between August, 1868, and June. 
1S69, he received from those two houses commissions 
amounting to $5,765.55 on paper ordered directly from the 
Book Concern. We give these as specimens only, not pre- 
tending to say what was the whole amount of profits and 
commissions on the entire sum of nearly $700,000. 

5. Because no evidence in rebuttal of the above state- 

* Several letters of paper dealers accompanying the minority report 
have already been given in this narrative. 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 119 

merits was laid before the Committee except to the effect 
that the purchase of paper through middle-men was not 
unfrequent. Moreover, an assertion was made to the Com- 
mittee that prices paid by the Concern for paper were as 
low as those paid by other publishing houses. But the 
testimony showed, 1. That the purchase of paper through 
brokers is the exception, and not the rule; that especially 
in large establishments, the usage is to purchase directly 
from manufacturers; and, 2. That even where brokers are 
employed the commission paid is rarely over one per cent. 
As to comparative prices paid by the Book Concern and 
other houses, it was conclusively shown that no clear proof 
is possible from the very nature of the case. And. more- 
over, our concern is not what other houses paid for paper, 
but what the Methodist Book Concern might have bought 
it for. 

6. Because, in our judgment, based upon testimony before 
us, the following losses have occurred in the Bindery: 

1. In leather, from December 1, 1867, to September 1, 
1S69, bought by the Book Concern, but not accounted for 
or shown to have been used in the Bindery, about $20,000. 

2. Also within nine months, from December 1, 1S6S. in 
the item of glue, paid for and not accounted for, about 

$soo. 

7. Because we believe that funds of the Book Concern 
have been sacrificed and placed in jeopardy by the appro- 
priation of the gold-sweepings to the head of the Bindery 
as a perquisite instead of a small supplement to his salary. 
For several years the purchases of gold-leaf have aver- 
aged over $S,000 per year, and the gold-sweepings have 
amounted, we are convinced, to at least fifteen per cent, 
of the whole purchase, making annually at least $1,200. 
Any employee is dangerously tempted when his careless 
us.- of costly materials results in the increase of his own 
salary. 

For the above reasons, not to name others, we feel 
ourselves compelled to present this minority report; and 
we further feel ourselves compelled to say, that the 
methods of making purchases in the Printing Department, 
the methods of paying wages and keeping accounts thereof 
In the Bindery, and the methods of cheeking invoices of 
goods received, have been defective, and likely, therefore, 
to lead to losses. We at the same time express our firm 
belief and hope that the Book Committee's investigations 



120 SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 

have so far awakened attention, and will lead to such 
improvements in the methods of business, that the Book 
Concern will be secured to a very great extent against 
the possibility of similar irregularities and losses here- 

after * • ' ' HENRY SLICER, 

JAMES PIKE, 
L. M. VERNON. 
New York, February 10, 18T0. 1 

The Committee by a resolution refused to re- 
ceive the report of the minority, claiming that 
they had no right to make it. Dr. Slicer then 
took it from the Secretary's table and put it in 
his pocket. The Committee then reconsidered 
its action and adopted the following: 

Resolved, That a paper called a minority report offered 
by Messrs. Slicer, Pike and Vernon be received and filed 
with the papers of the Committee, to be forwarded to the 
General Conference. 

The object of this resolution was to suppress 
the minority report, and prevent it going with 
that of the majority to the approaching Annual 
Conferences.* 

1 The Christian Advocate of April 24, 1870, designated 
the above as the " keynote " of an " outburst of brazen 
harmony," and said: .... "That mischievous missive 
begins its evil work by assuming for itself the style and 
title of a Minority Report of the Book Committee. That 
body however is known only in its individuality— one and 
indivisible— and therefore a minority report is an absurdity. 
The paper therefore is without legal status; the unoffical 
utterance of its authors; but not therefore any the less 
potent for mischief." 

The above needs no comment. 

* For action of Baltimore Conference, and Dr. Sheer's 
account of their treatment of minority and their report, 
see Appendix II. 



SECOND MEETING OF BOOK COMMITTEE. 121 

Bev. J. H. Moore said, "The minority has 
forced upon us the consideration of another mat- 
ter. I had hoped that the Committee would be 
unanimous, but the minority report has disap- 
pointed me, and we must now proceed to another 
question." 

Key. Geo. W. Woodruff, with much emphasis, 
said, "The enemy has gotten into the citadel of 
the Church, and must be gotten out." 

Eev. B. F. Kawlings left the Chair and said, 
"Can we say that Dr. Lanahan will make no 
further investigation into these matters? If not, 
it is time to act. We have but one thing to do, 
and that is to go forward." 

Mr. Woodruff again spoke, and said, "The 
action of the minority makes it necessary for us 
to go back to our original purpose." 

J. H. Moore then addressed me directly, and 
said, "Will you promise not to report these 
things to the General Conference?" 

I cannot put upon paper the exhibitions of 
passion accompanying all this, to which I listen- 
ed in silence. 



THIRD MEETING OF GENERAL COM- 
MITTEE. 

Matters had now reached a stage when formal 
action was found necessary to cover up the 
frauds, which could best be done by starting 
formal proceedings to get me out of the Concern, 
and the following " private " notice for a meeting 
of the Committee for May 19th, 1870 was issued. 

[PRIVATE NOTICE.] 

To the Book Committee: 

Dear Brethren.— I have received a paper containing 
(lunges and specifications against Rev. John Lanahan, 
D. D., Assistant Book Agent of the Methodist Book Concern, 
to which your attention should be called. 

The charges are: 1. Official misconduct and malfeasance. 
2. Neglect of official duty. 3. Untruthfulness, irascibility, 
slanderous disposition, and other objectionable personal 
characteristics, which unfit him for the position of Assis- 
tant Book Agent. 4. Insubordination to his official supe- 
riors—the Book Committee— and violation of his pledges 
to them. 5. Want of business qualifications and capacity 
for the discharge of his official duties as such Assistant 
Book Agent. 

Under those charges there are altogether twenty-nine 
specifical ions. 

Accompanying the charges and specifications is the fol- 
lowing request: 

"We, the undersigned ministers and members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, to convene and take action 
L22 



THITtD MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 123 

on the above charges and specifications as soon as practi- 
cable. 
" (Signed.) 

MINISTERS. 
David Graves. Newark Conference. 
Jacob P. Fort, 

Geo. F. Dickinson, " " 

J. Cowens, " " 

D. Walters, " 

H. F. Pease, Presiding Elder, New York East Confer- 
ence. 
W. K. Evans. New York East Conference. 
Geo. Taylor, Pastor Methodist Episcopal Church, Flush- 
ing, and others. 

LAYMEN. 
J. AY. Allison, Yonkers Methodist Episcopal Church. 
C. H. Fellows. Brooklyn. 

orange Judd, Flushing Methodist Episcopal Church. 
Jas. R. Edwards, Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, 

New York. 
Jno. O. Hoyt, Elizabeth, St. Paul's Methodist Episcopal 

Church. 
Joseph K. Knapp, St. John's, Brooklyn. 
II. D. Rolph, St. Paul's, Elizabeth, New Jersey." 
The Committee can only be called together by the Chair- 
man, at the request of four of its members, and said mem- 
bers are to designate the time and place. I suggest May 
l'Jth as the time, in case it is thought best to meet. 
Respectfully submitted, 

B. F. RAYVLINGS, Chairman. 
Indianapolis, Ind., April 27, 1S70. 

The required number signed the request for 
the call. 

of ihis meeting I had no knowledge save from 
private rumor, until the Committee met, al- 
though their coming was known to some of the 
employees of I he house. A majority of the mem- 
bers <li<l not come into the office of the Agents, 



124 THIRD MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

but went directly to the room in which their 
meetings were held, some of them having been 
to the office of their lawyer, Mr. E. L. Fancher, to 
get instructions as to how to proceed. They 
came unheralded, and for what? All I knew 
was that a heavy blow was intended, which 
might fall upon me at any moment — when or 
how, I could only guess. It soon appeared, how- 
ever, that the object of their mysterious assemb- 
ling was the suspension of John Lanahan, As- 
sistant Agent. Instead of there being a prose- 
cution of the defrauders, who had enriched them- 
selves at the expense of the property and honor 
of the Church, I was to be held up before the 
world as the criminal. It turned out that they 
had been summoned to try a long list of charges 
against me; but I, the person most interested, 
had received no notice of such charges. A pam- 
phlet purporting to contain charges had been 
sent to me through the mail anonymously, and 
without explanation — I do not know to this day 
by whom it was sent. The charges were signed 
by sixteen persons outside the Book Concern, 
three-fourths of whom were entire strangers 
to me, and related to matters of which they 
could have no personal knowledge. One charge 
related to certain pledges alleged to have been 
given by me to the Book Committee, of which, 
whether true or false, the outside public could 
know nothing whatever. The charges were en- 
tertained by the Committee without a word of 
communication with me. Four of the signers 



THIRD MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 125 

appeared before the Committee, Bev. H. F. Pease, 
J. C. Ockerkausen, J. K. Edwards and C. H. Fel- 
lows, with three of whom I had not the slightest 
acquaintance. With the Rev. H. F. Pease I had 
no acquaintance beyond the merest civility when 
we casually met in the Book Concern. I had 
never been in his company on any business mat- 
ter, nor socially ^.Ye minutes. Dr. Slicer, of Bal- 
timore, questioned these men who had signed as 
to their personal knowledge concerning the mat- 
ters referred to in the charges. Mr. Ocker- 
hausen said: "I know nothing personally. I 
signed upon the representation of others." 
Messrs. Fellows and Edwards said the same; 
Rev. Mr. Pease said, " some things I know per- 
sonally, others I know from report." 

Dr. Slicer then asked Mr. Pease as to his per- 
sonal knowledge of the matters referred to in 
the fourth specification of the "fifth charge," 
as follows: 

In this, that said Assistant Book Agent, during his term 
of office, occasioned losses and falling off in the business 
profits of the establishment by his aforesaid and unwar- 
rantable and public imputations against the Book Concern, 
its management, and employees, and by his aforesaid 
unwarrantable refusal to contradict the said libelous arti- 
cle in the New York Times, and the damaging sanction 
hf lias given to the damaging imputations of that article. 

The Chairman ruled the question out as irrele- 
vant, lie evidently did not want the fact 
brought out that Dr. Carlton was the informant 
of Mr. Pease. After the Committee had held 



126 THIRD MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

three sessions and entertained the charges, I was 
called. The chairman said, "I suppose you have 
been notified thai charges haw been preferred 
againsl you?" I answered that I had received 
no notice. He said, " Have 1 yon not received 
what purported to be charges?" I answered 
that I had. He then said, "They are the same." 
I asked him if he had seni them? He said he 
had not. lie then asked me if I had anything 
to say about the charges I responded that I 
had nothing to say. I supposed he wanted to 
know whether I would plead "guilty, or not 
guilty." That, I believe, is the usual course of 
procedure in criminal courts, and the Committee 
was now acting under the advice of Lawyer 
Fancher. 

The Committee remained in session a little 
more than three days, discussing resolutions in 
regard to my suspension and trial. At the same 
time they and their helpers were active in the 
use of varied means, resorting to both threats 
and persuasions, to get me to resign or promise 
that I would say nothing further about the 
frauds. They went so far as to induce Kev, 
Bishop Janes, resident in New York, and Kev. 
Dr. R. S. Foster, then President of Drew Semi- 
nary, and now one of the Bishops of the M. E. 
Church, resident in Boston, Mass., to call at my 
house during the meeting. Bishop Janes said: 
"The Committee want an excuse to adjourn and 
go home." I quickly responded, "They will get 
no excuse from me." He then remarked, that 



THIRD MEETING OF GEXERAL COMMITTEE. 127 

Dr. Foster liad a little paper which if I would 
sign, the Committee would adjourn the next 
morning and go home. I asked him if it admit- 
ted great frauds? He replied, that it said noth- 
ing about frauds. I then said, "I will not hear 
it read, and you can judge whether I will sign 
it." The good and timid Bishop then indulged 
in some earnest persuasion, telling me that the 
paper was of little consequence, and that my 
signing it would "give the Committee an ex- 
cuse to leave the city, which would probably end 
the charges." Knowing as I did the greatness 
of the iniquities that had been committed in the 
Book Concern, and the scarcely less culpable 
guilt of the Book Committee, and some other 
officials in their attempts to cover up the frauds 
I had unearthed, and in their pitiless efforts 
to damage my reputation, and though my 
nervous system was much broken by what I 
had endured, I said to Bishop Janes and Dr. 
Foster, "If I know myself, I would be buried 
alive before I would sign any paper that does 
not declare that there have been great and long- 
continued frauds in the Book Concern." I then 
added, "If what I have said is not enough, I 
would consent to be blotted out of being rather 
than sign anything short of declaring great 
frauds." That ended the interview. 

Those worthy and justly honored men did not 
understand that much manipulated Committee 
as well as I did. A written statement of the 
above interview, by my request, was read to 



12S THIRD MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

Bishop Foster, by Rev. Dr. Lutlier T. Townsend, 
September 4th, 1894, and Bishop Foster corrobo- 
rated it. Thus without getting any "excuse" 
from me, the Committee of its own accord, ad- 
journed the next morning to meet in Cincinnati 
20th of October, after adopting the following 
scandalous paper: 

Whereas, A bill of charges has been preferred against 
Dr. J. Lanahan, Assistant Book Agent of New York, upon 
notice of which and a proper call, the Book Committee 
convened, and whereas said charges have been duly authen- 
ticated before the Committee, with assurances that the 
parties complaining hold themselves responsible for their 
prosecution, therefore 

Resolved, 1. That we, the Book Committee, do not feel 
at liberty to ignore said charges, or treat lightly complain- 
ants so responsible, or complaints of so grave a character. 

2. That while we hold this view, and without expressing 
any opinion on the charges aforesaid, finding ourselves 
surrounded by many and great embarrassments, we deem 
it expedient to defer the consideration until our next 
annual meeting in October, unless emergencies arise which 
shall make more immediate attention to said charges im- 
perative on the Committee. 

3. That Dr. Carlton, Agent, be hereby instructed to exer- 
cise his authority as such in the management of the affairs 
of the Concern as far as he shall find it necessary to the 
safety and success of the business. 

The following was also adopted: 

Resolved, That we have unbounded confidence in Dr. 
•Carlton, the principal Agent, and believe that he can take 
care of the interests of the Concern until such time as the 
exigencies of the Concern may make our interference abso- 
lutely necessary. 

June 2d, 1870, the Christian Advocate said: 

The complaints were too serious to be set aside as trivial, 
and the complainants too respectable to be denied a hear- 



THIRD MEETING OF GENERAE COMMITTEE. 129 

ing. The complaints were therefore entertained. Next it 
became necessary to bring the accused to trial. 

Thus by the Committee, and the Chief Official 
organ of the Church, with my name at the head 
of it as one of its publishers, I was held up before 
the world five months as a presumptive criminal. 
The Advocate further said: 

The Committee also passed a resolution instructing Dr. 
Carlton, the Agent, to take full possession of the affairs of 
the Concern. The whole business of the establishment is 
in the hands of Dr. Carlton, and his authority is equal to 
all the demands of the case, so the Committee thought, 
and therefore they reminded the Agent in chief that they 
expected that he would use his prerogatives in a legitimate 
way, and to all requisite extents for the proper manage- 
ment of the affairs committed to him. 

Was it at all strange that multitudes of the 
readers of the Advocate should have regarded 
me as a compound of knave and fool — vastly 
more of the former, however, than of the latter? 
The evident object was to make the Church and 
the public believe that I was endangering the 
very existence of the establishment and that 
"The Agent" was required to exert himself to 
counteract my destructive work; yet he was 
" The Agent," who, with the heads of the Print- 
ing and Bindery departments, the book-keeper 
and clerks, had made the publishing house of 
the Church the head-quarters of three immense 
oil companies. It is a significant and suggestive 
fact that the Book Committee and the official 
press, in all their misrepresentations and per- 
versions, were as silent as the grave in regard 



130 THIRD MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

to those oil companies. Did they fear that if 
the Church got information of their existence, 
their denials of mismanagement and fraud would 
not be believed? 



FOURTH MEETING OF THE GENERAL 
COMMITTEE. 

1. lanahan's trial axd the conspiracy 
agaixst the episcopacy. 

October 20th, the Conmiittee met at Cincinnati, 
Ohio, according to adjournment, in the Western 
Book Concern. From a skeleton copy of the 
official record, and my note book, I will give the 
narrative of this remarkable meeting, not much 
more remarkable, however, than others which 
had preceded it. There were thirteen members 
present. Rev. C. Brooks was elected Chairman, 
and I. S. Bingham, Secretary. Much formality 
was observed at this meeting; accordingly, "a 
Committee of two was appointed to conduct the 
President to the Chair," which they did. The 
rule of the former meeting was adopted, pro- 
viding for secret sessions, and that no member 
should communicate any of its proceedings with- 
out the consent of the Committee. " On motion 
of B. F. Rawlings, the Committee agreed to hear 
from the Agents at New York. Dr. Carlton 
thereupon proceeded to make some verbal state- 
ments, and read by request a series of questions 
and answers, which had been prepared at the 
previous meeting of the Committee, at New 

131 



132 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

York." Said paper of questions and answers 
was signed, "Carlton and Lanalian, Agents." 
I stated that I had never heard of the questions, 
nor had I seen the paper to which my name was 
attached, and that I could not and would not be 
responsible for its statements, and requested 
that my name be erased from it. Dr. Carlton 
said, "I want to know if I must consult Dr. 
Lanalian about the reports I make?" I replied, 
"If my name is signed to your reports, I claim 
to know what they contain." The Secretary 
said "I addressed the questions to the Agents, 
and the document is properly signed. It is a 
legal document and from the proper authorities." 
I again protested against such a use of my name, 
and requested that my protest be entered upon 
the Committee's records. My request was re- 
jected, and a majority acquiesced in the decision 
of the Secretary! Was the like ever heard of 
outside of the Spanish Inquisition? It was, how- 
ever, in harmony with many other things done 
by the Committee. I greatly regret that when 
I got access to the Committee's records I did not 
find that remarkable paper of "questions and 
answers." Perhaps when I am in my grave, and 
the " lost or stolen records " are found, it may be 
produced and quoted to prove that I had retract- 
ed my charges of mismanagement and fraud, and 
united with the Senior Agent in a glowing ac- 
count of the management of the Book Concern. 
The Chairman announced that "A paper pur- 
porting to be Supplementary Charges against J. 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 133 

Lanahan had been received, signed by H. F. 
Pease and others, which was laid npon the 
table." After some discussion about the Sup- 
plementary Charges, Key. B. F. Rawlings pre- 
sented the following: 

In view of the representations made to the Book Com- 
mittee at its session in May last, and at the present ses- 
sion, by H. F. Pease and others, (see document marked 
" A," Charges and Specifications), concerning the official 
conduct of Rev. J. Lanahan, Assistant Agent, at New 
York, 

Resolved, That said Assistant Agent be and hereby is 
suspended from his position as such Assistant Agent. 

Pending final action on the above, I was invit- 
ed to make any communication I might desire. 
I replied that I did not deem it proper to make 
any reply to the charges at that time, and stated 
that I was aware of the object of the secret meet- 
ings they had held, with Dr. Carlton present, and 
myself excluded; that they had kept me held up 
before the world for five months as a presump- 
tive criminal, and that I should be obliged to 
them if they would consummate their purpose, 
whatever it might be. I saw plainly that the 
plan was to keep the charges hanging over me 
indefinitely, and I, therefore, determined to force 
the issue. 

A resolution was then offered by B. F. Raw- 
tings, and adopted, to " order the main question 
without debate and on proper call. The vote 
was taken by yeas and nays. Yeas, C. S. Van- 
cleve, I. S. Bingham, J. Irwin, J. F. Kennedy, 



134 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

B. F. Kawlings, F. A. Blades, H. Bannister, C. 
Brooks and J. Bothweiler, nine. Nays, J. Pike, 
Henry Slicer, G. Maltby, L. M. Vernon, four." 
Messrs. Woodruff and Moore were absent. 

January 12th, 1871, was fixed as the time for 
my trial, and all the Bishops were requested to 
be present. Several resolutions were adopted 
appointing all the preliminary arrangements, 
after which I presented the following: 

Cincinnati, October 20, 1870. 
To the Book Committee, now in session: 

Brethren.— I respectfully ask authority from you to make 
such examination of the books and papers of the Book 
Concern at New York, as I may deem necessary for my 
defense. I also, ask to be furnished with copies of such 
papers and records of the Committee as I may desire for 
the same purpose. 

Yours very truly, JOHN LANAHAN. 

My request, to my surprise, was promptly and 
unanimously granted without any restrictions, 
and I immediately started for my home in New 
York, congratulating myself that the scandalous 
charges that had hung over me five months 
had been brought down to a position where I 
could face them and their authors. When I got 
access to the Committee's records, I was aston- 
ished to find, that after I left they had recon- 
sidered all the papers adopted in connection with 
my suspension, reshaped them, and then readopt- 
ed them. The most significant change was the 
reconsideration of the frank and proper resolu- 
tion giving me unrestricted authority to examine 
the books and papers preparatory to my defense, 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 135 

and the substitution of the following amazing 
paper: 

Resolved, That inasmuch as Dr. Lanahan has asked per- 
mission to make such examination of the account-books 
and papers of the Book Concern at New York, as may be 
necessary for his defense, we recognize the propriety of 
his request, and direct that Dr. Carlton, the Book Agent, 
at New York, afford such aids and facilities as Dr. Lana- 
han here asks for, consistent with the proper care and 
safety of the books of the Concern, provided that the 
books and papers shall not be removed from the building 
where they are ordinarily kept, and that the examination 
of them shall be made under the supervision of Mr. E. 
Grant, the principal book-keeper of the Concern, or some 
other competent and responsible person who may be desig- 
nated by Dr. Carlton, to assist as above provided. And 
provided further, that when Dr. Lanahan shall specify 
any books or papers which he may need for the purpose 
above specified, Dr. Carlton shall cause a record of them 
to be made and proper receipts taken therefor. 

I. S. BINGHAM, Sec. of Book Committee. 

As if they had not sufficiently degraded me 
in my moral character by the above, they next 
proceeded to degrade me in my official position 
by attempting to revive a law that had been 
repealed many years before. The following is 
what they adopted: 

It is the judgment of this Committee that the relation 
of Assistant Agent to the Agent is that which is expressed 
by the word " Assistant," and the Committee understand 
the term as defined by the Discipline of 1816 — namely, 
44 who shall act under the direction of the Agent." 

The entire paragraph of 1816, containing the 
words, " an Assistant to act under his direction," 
was repealed in 1832, and the following among 
the rest substituted: "There shall be an Agent 



136 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

or General Book-Steward, and an Assistant, who 
shall act as chief clerk, both of whom .... shall 
be chosen from among the travelling preachers." 
In 1840, " the clause requiring the Assistant 
Agent to act as chief clerk was struck out" (see 
History of the Discipline, p. 314). In the journal 
of the General Conference, p. 119, this matter, 
as reported by the Committee on the Book Con- 
ecru, is stated in these words: 

Your Committee recommend a change in the Discip- 
line on page 180, section 8, part 2, paragraph 3, and in 
order thereto offer the following resolution: 

22. Resolved, That the words " who shall act as chief 
clerk " be stricken out. This was adopted. 

Iii 1844, the definition of the powers of the 
Agents took the form which it has retained ever 
since, to wit: 

The Agents shall have the authority to regulate the 
publications and all other parts of the business of the 
Concern, except what belongs to the editorial departments, 
as the state of the finances will admit and the demands 
may require. 

This had been the law of the Church more 
than twenty-five years. But it must be kept 
in mind that the Committee claimed to be " the 
General Conference in its absence," and as such, 
could revive repealed laws and abolish new ones ! 
The reader must not be shocked at such conduct. 
It is in harmony with all their proceedings. The 
question may be asked, what was the object of 
such strange action? Several answers might be 
given. One is that as the Subordinate or " Chief 



FOURTH MEETING OF GEXERAE COMMFTTEE. 137 

Clerk " of the Senior Agent, I had no right to see 
the bank books, or know what nse was made of 
the immense snms of money belonging to the 
Book Concern, and the other great connectional 
interests of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

One of two things is trne, either they feared 
an examination or they thought they were deal- 
ing with a man too unreliable to be trusted with 
the books and papers, and over whom they must 
place every possible safeguard. It might have 
been thought the requirement that I should 
"specify any books or papers, and a record of 
them be made, and proper receipts be taken 
therefor," sufficient without placing "the prin- 
cipal book-keeper, E. Grant, (one of my subordi- 
nates) or some other competent and responsible 
person, designated by Dr. Carlton, to assist as 
above provided," to watch me. Grant was cer- 
tainly the "responsible person" that Dr. Carl- 
ton would have chosen above all others, because 
he had just at that time been made specially 
zealous for the honor of the Senior Agent, by the 
latter having secretly added two thousand dol- 
lars to his salary. A further significant fact in 
this connection is, that when I applied to Dr. 
Carlton for the bank books, he positively refused 
to let me see them, notwithstanding all the 
above safeguards! 

After receiving and entertaining new accusa- 
tions against me, called "Supplementary Char- 
ges," the Committee adjourned to meet at the 
Book Concern, in New York, January 12th, 1871. 



138 FOURTH MEETING 'OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 
THE TRIAL COMMENCED. 

The Comniittee met according to appointment 
at the Book Concern, 805 Broadway, New York, 
January 12th, 1871. All the members were pres- 
ent. Messrs. Pike and Slicer objected to the 
further employment of Rev. Alexander McLain 
as Stenographer, on the ground of his active 
partisanship, but their objection was overruled. 
Anticipating that the Committee would want 
to sit with closed doors, and not willing to trust 
Mr. McLain, I employed a stenographer. When 
he appeared, the question was asked, "What is 
that stranger doing in the room?" I answered: 
"He is my clerk." A member said to me that 
he would be excluded at the next meeting. I 
replied: "If that is done, I will issue an appeal 
to the public, I will not submit to any further 
star-chamber proceedings." The attempt was 
not made. 

Bishops Janes, Simpson, Ames and Scott, were 
in the Bishops' room, waiting a notice to be pres- 
ent in their co-ordinate relation to the trial. 
The Committee wanted to sit with closed doors, 
and asked for the opinion of the Bishops, which 
they declined to give, stating that the Committee 
must settle that, and all such questions to suit 
themselves. Resolutions to sit with open doors 
were twice voted down. But the pressure of 
public opinion proved too strong, and the follow- 
ing was adopted: 

Whereas, It has become evident to the Committee that 
Dr. Lanahan and his counsel wish to have a full report of 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 139 

the testimony and of the action of the Committee given 
to the public; 

Resolved, That responsible and accredited reporters for 
the leading daily papers of this city, for whom admittance 
may be asked by the proprietors, shall have pei mission to 
be present and report for their papers respectively the pro- 
ceedings of this session of the Committee. 

The following order of procedure was also 
adopted: 

1. That gentlemen making charges against the Rev. Dr. 
Lanahan are requested to present testimony, following the 
order of the papers and specifications as signed and pub- 
lished. 

2. That any person thus testifying may call to his assist- 
ance any minister or layman to corroborate his evidence. 

3. That the Rev. Dr. Lanahan be allowed to reply to such 
charges. 

4. That the Rev. Dr. Lanahan be allowed the same privi- 
lege of calling upon ministers and laymen as granted to 
the prosecution. 

5. That witnesses introduced shall, when necessary, be 
cross-examined; and also that but one witness be allowed 
in the room at a time. 

Keporters for the press were now admitted, 
and I give the proceedings as they were publish- 
ed in the New York papers, and from my note 
book. 

The following communication from the Bishops 
was presented by their Secretary pro tern., 
Bishop Simpson: 
To the Book Committee: 

Dear Brethren.— In accordance with your request, dated 
November 1, 1870, we are here to be present at the investi- 
gation before the Book Committee touching the official con- 
duct of Rev. John Lanahan, Assistant Book Agent at New 
York. This case being without precedent In our Church, 
and this being the first instance in which the Discipline of 



140 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

the Church relating to it has been administered, we have 
deemed it proper to confer together as to our authority and 
duty in the case. 

1. After consultation we are of opinion that we are not 
to act as an integral part of the Book Committee, but as 
a concurrent authority in determining the result of the 
investigation. 

2. The Committee must conduct the investigation accord- 
ing to their own judgment We hold, however, that, as 
a concurrent authority in the final determination of the 
case, we have a right to require such information as we 
may deem necessary to enable us to form an intelligent 
and just judgment. 

3. As our official action is subject to review by the Gen- 
eral Conference, to which body we are directly amenable, 
we deem it necessary to have a full and perfect record 
of our participation in the proceedings, that we may sub- 
mit the same to that body. For this reason, and to aid us 
in our consultations when by ourselves, we have secured 
a Secretary to make for our use such a record. 

EDMUND S. JANES, M. SIMPSON, 
L. SCOTT, E. R. AMES. 

New York, January 12, 1871. 

The Bishops were wise in selecting their own 
stenographer. Counsel for the plaintiffs were 
E. L. Fancher, Esq., Gen. Theodore Runyon, of 
New Jersey and Rev. H. F. Pease. For the 
defendant, Judge G. G. Reynolds and Dr. James 
M. Buckley, Hon. Oliver Hoyt and John Elliot, 
Esq. It was apparent that the Committee ex- 
pected the charges and specifications to be read, 
and then each taken up item by item. But I 
had prepared and printed my answers to each 
charge and specification in regular order, admit- 
ting or denying, and thus preventing the entan- 
glements which often arise in trials. Thus, too, 
my accusers were given something to do. When 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 141 

plaintiff's counsel commenced to read the char- 
ges and specifications, Judge Eeynolds an- 
nounced that he would read the answer to each 
in its order. Thus the two proceeded together 
as they are here given. I then furnished each 
member of the Committee a printed copy of my 
answers, and a more dumbfounded set of men I 
never saw than the majority. They had thought 
to get affairs into entanglement and confusion, 
and thus weary the Church and the public by 
endless discussion and enforced delay. This 
was defeated by my acknowledgment of certain 
of the charges, and indicated readiness to prove 
them, and their conscious inability to prove those 
which I denied. 

Kev. J. F. Kennedy openly stated in the Com- 
mittee, as "no secret, that Mr. E. L. Fancher 
wrote the charges." It was also an open secret 
that Dr. Carlton, with the approval and advice 
of certain members of the Committee, assisted 
him, and that S. J. Goodenough hawked them 
about in Xew York and New Jersey to get men 
to sign them, and that a majority of the signers 
did not read the paper to which they affixed 
their names! These facts would have been 
brought ou1 In evidence if the trial had gone on. 

The following are the charges and specifica- 
1 ions, and my answer: 

To iln- Hook Committee, appointed by the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodisl Kpiscopal Church: 
Charges and specifications against Rev. John Lanahan, 
D. D., Assistant Book Agent of the Methodist. Book Con- 
cern. 



142 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

CHARGE FIRST. 

Official Misconduct and Malfeasance. 

Specification 1. In this, that said Assistant Book Agent, 
during several months prior to September 21st, 1S69, made 
to various persons, and particularly to Fletcher Harper, 
unfounded statements, imputing mismanagement, fraud, 
and corruption in the said Book Concern, and large losses 
therein, and injudiciously and recklessly gave currency to 
such imputations; by means whereof an article was pub- 
lished in the New York Times of September 21st, 1869, in 
which such alleged mismanagement, fraud, and corruption, 
and such large losses, and other untruthful imputations 
against said Book Concern, were publicly asserted, to the 
great damage of the interests of the Book Concern and the 
scandal of the Church. 

JOHN LANAHAN'S ANSWER TO CHARGE FIRST. 

Of Official Misconduct and Malfeasance. 

Specification 1. I, the said John Lanahan, deny the allega- 
tions contained in specification 1, of charge first. 

Specification 2. In this, that the said Assistant Agent, in 
the presence and hearing of divers persons, on the day of 
the publication of said article, which was false and libelous 
in every material respect, proclaimed that said article was 
all true, except in the statement of the amount of said 
losses. 

Specification 2. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 2, of charge first. 

Specification 3. In this, that after the appearance of said 
article in the New York Times, and its damaging effects to 
the Church and) Book Concern were foreseen, the said As- 
sistant Agent willfully refused to unite with the principal 
Agent of said Book Concern in any official explanation or 
denial of the said article, unless the injurious charge that 
fraud and corruption existed in the Book Concern were 
again repeated or admitted. 

Specification 3. I deny tbe allegations contained in speci- 
fication 3, of charge first, as they are therein set forth. It 
is true, however, that after the appearance of the article 
in the New York Times, I refused to unite in a denial of 
any fraud or corruption in the Book Concern, but such 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 143 

refusal was not " willful " on my part. There had been 
fraud and corruption in the management of the business 
of said Book Concern on the part of some of its employees, 
and I could not truthfully deny it. 

Specification 4. In this, that the said Assistant Agent, 
knowing that the Book Agents, and Thomas Carlton, as 
Treasurer of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, had large and frequent dealings with Brown 
Brothers & Co.; and knowing that the house of Brown 
Brothers & Co. was not indebted to the Book Concern, and 
that said house was, and is, one of the wealthiest in New 
York, willfully and maliciously represented, during 1869 or 
1870, to one of its members, that said firm was published 
as defaulters on the books of the Methodist Book Concern. 

Specification 4. I deny that I at any time represented to 
one of the firm of Brown Brothers & Co. that said firm 
were published as defaulters on the*books of the Methodist 
Book Concern, as in that behalf charged against me in 
specification 4, of charge first. 

It does, however, appear from the ledger of said. Book 
Concern that said Brown Brothers & Co. are indebted to 
said Concern in the sum of $20,607.86 for moneys depos- 
ited, and that said indebtedness has been charged, as an 
uncollectible demand, to profit and loss account. Knowing 
the house of Brown Brothers & Co. to be of the highest 
responsibility and standing, I was unable to understand 
why such an entry should have been made, and I took 
occasion to ask one of said firm in regard to the trans- 
action. 

Specification 5. In this, that the said Assistant Agent 
during the time he has held his office, has stated that the 
affairs of said Book Concern were "in chaos;" when, at 
the same time, they were in good order. 

Specification 5. I am charged, in specification 5, of charge 
first, with having " stated that the affairs of said Book 
Concern were in chaos." I have made such a statement, 
and I believe the same to be strictly true; and I deny so 
much of said specification 5 as charges that said affairs 
11 were in good order " at the time, and no more. 

And as evidence of the chaotic condition of said affairs, 
I aver and hold myself responsible and ready to prove 
that the system of book-keeping adopted by said Book 
Concern is an inferior system, incomplete and unsatisfac- 



144 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

tory, and that the books as kept contain erasures, substi- 
tutions and charges highly improper, and such as would 
not be allowed by any respectable commercial house; that 
the profits of the Concern have been computed upon a 
fictitious basis; that the inventories of the property have 
been increased and diminished arbitrarily to suit the 
necessities of particular emergencies; that great discrep- 
ancies have existed between the printed exhibits furnished 
to the Church and the Books of said Concern, such printed 
exhibits in some instances showing a profit when the 
books show there was no profit but an actual loss; that 
errors have been improperly corrected, and that some still 
remain in the accounts uncorrected; that the capital stock 
of the Concei n is not what it is represented to be upon the 
books of said Concern; that improper entries have been 
made in said books, whereby great and important trans- 
actions have been rendered unintelligible; that many im- 
portant safeguards are systematically neglected— as a 
result of which a wide margin for frauds and errors exists, 
and important information is difficult or impossible to be 
accurately obtained; that said books of account do not 
show the real condition of the affairs of said Concern, nor 
can a correct statement of its assets or condition be made 
upon the basis of the information furnished by the said 
books and inventories. 

Specification 6. In this, that the said Assistant Agent 
has, during his term of office, publicly proclaimed and fre- 
quently alleged that frauds and corruption had existed in 
said Book Concern, resulting in large losses; whereas there 
was no sufficient foundation for such unwarrantable char- 
ges, and no proper excuse for making any such public 
proclamation and allegation. 

Specification 6. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 6, of charge first, as the same are therein set forth. 

It is true, however, that frauds, corruption and misman- 
agement had existed in said Book Concern, resulting in 
large losses, and I did not deny or attempt to conceal the 
fact. 

In the single item of leather more than $25,000 worth was 
purchased during a period of twenty months, over and 
above what has been used, which has never been accounted 
for. 

In the item of paper, a system of making purchases was 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 145 

allowed and practiced, whereby a man having no legiti- 
mate connection with the Book Concern controlled the pur- 
chases to his own profit and to the loss and discredit of 
the Concern. 

In the item of wages, proof of more than two hundred 
instances exist where a less amount was paid to operatives 
than was, or should have been, paid to them, or than was 
or should have been drawn for such payments, and less 
than was returned to the book-keeper as having been paid 
to such operatives. 

Specification 7. In this, that the said Assistant Agent, 
during his term of office, has demeaned himself toward the 
principal Agent, Editors connected with said Book Concern, 
its employees, and others having business relations with it, 
in a violent, dogmatic, and angry manner, and has asserted 
his official authority in an unreasonable, unbusiness-like, 
and improper manner, to the interference with and detri- 
ment of the regular and proper business of the Concern. 

Specification 7. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 7, of charge first. 

Specification 8. In this, that said Assistant Agent, during 
his term of office, has evinced a spirit of hostility toward 
the principal Book Agent, and a disposition not to coope- 
rate with him in the orderly and proper management of 
the affairs of the Book Concern; and in this particular has 
publicly made petty and discreditable objections to matters 
connected with the business and book-keeping of said 
Concern; such as an entry on the books of the Concern of 
an item of $20,900, charged to profit and loss, and the 
guarantee of certain letters of credit for the Missionary 
Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; the cir- 
cumstances of which had been fully explained to him by the 
principal Agent and in respect of which no motive of said 
Assistant Agent existed for divulging the matter, except to 
annoy said principal Agent, and to impute to him the 
supposed prejudicial charge of guaranteeing letters of 
credit for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; and in 
this particular also, has improperly charged said principal 
Agent with not cooperating with him in discovering as- 
sumed frauds and losses; has sought counsel as to Book 
Concern affairs with persons outside of and inimical to the 
establishment. Instead of advising with said principal 
Agent; has brought into the Concern, without the advice 



146 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

or knowledge of the principal Agent, so-called experts and 
others to overhaul secretly its books, accounts, vouchers, 
and affairs; has made surreptitious reports to others of 
Book Concern matters that should have been treated as 
private matters belonging to the Agents, and not to be 
divulged without the assent of the principal Agent; has 
made injudicious bargains for ink, paper, and other mate- 
rials, without consultation with the principal Agent; has 
given orders to clerks and employees not to pursue the 
orderly and customary modes of business without first 
consulting him and obtaining his consent; has spoken of 
and to said principal Agent in a contemptuous and im- 
proper manner, and has made a public speech before the 
Baltimore Annual Conference, containing injurious and 
untruthful assertions touching said principal Agent and 
the Book Concern. 

Specification 8. I deny that I have " evinced a spirit of 
hostility towards the principal book Agent, or a disposition 
not to cooperate with him in the orderly and proper man- 
agement of the affairs of the Book Concern," as charged 
upon me in specification 8, of charge first. And as to the 
particular matters set forth in said specification, in that 
behalf, I deny them as set forth. It is true, however, that 
I have made objections to matters connected with the busi- 
ness and book-keeping of said Concern, but not " petty " nor 
" discreditable " objections. I think the system of keeping 
the books should be changed, and various matters connected 
with the business have not commended themselves to my 
judgment, and I have stated my objections to the principal 
Agent for the purpose of inducing a reform. I did object 
to the manner in which an item of $20,900, charged to 
profit and loss, was entered upon the books, but not from 
the motives alleged in said specification 8, but for the fol- 
lowing reasons: 

1. Because the entry shows that Brown Brothers & Co. 
are indebted to the Book Concern for the said amount, 
which is not true. 

2. Because the books did not disclose who the time debtor 
was. 

3. Because notes had been given for said indebtedness by 
the real debtor, but such notes were not entered upon the 
books, nor did it appear therefrom that any notes had 
been given on account of such indebtedness. 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 147 

4. Because $1,300 had been paid on one of said notes, but 
no entry of such payment was made on the books, nor 
was the money so collected accounted for on the books of 
the Concern. 

For these reasons I considered said entry and omissions 
" more than improper." 

It is also true that the said principal Agent has not 
cooperated with me in the examination of certain trans- 
actions and matters of the said Concern, after circumstan- 
ces had shown to my satisfaction they were irregular and 
suspicious, and probably fraudulent. I did engage a person 
to assist me in examining the wages accounts, who was 
more expert in such matters than I was, but it was done 
in the interest of the Concern and not secretly. My Balti- 
more speech was not untruthful. The general statements 
of this specification which are not already answered, I 
deny. 

CHARGE SECOND. 
Neglect of Official Duty. 

Specification 1. In this, that said Assistant Agent has 
during his term of office, spent large portions of his time, 
that should have been employed in his official duties, in 
matters that do not further the interests of the Book 
Concern; has neglected to attend Annual Conferences when 
the business of the establishment required that he should 
do so; and has been engaged in attempts to defame the 
said Concern, and to defend and aggrandize himself in 
respect of his late unfounded imputations against the 
Concern. 

ANSWER TO CHARGE SECOND. 
Of Neglect of Official Duty. 

Specification 1. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 1, of charge second. 

CHARGE THIRD. 

Untruthfulness, Irascibility, Slanderous Disposition, and 
other Objectionable Personal Characteristics which 
Unfit him for the Position of Assistant Book Agent. 

Specification 1. In this, that said Assistant Agent un- 
truthfully charged, during the session of the Book Commit- 



148 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

tee in February, 1870, that there was a conspiracy among 
some of said Committee, headed by the Attorney of the 
Book Concern, against him, and has since then repeated 
said untruthful charge. 

ANSWER TO CHARGE THIRD. 

Specification 1. I did make the charge of conspiracy 
referred to in specification 1, of charge third, and I then 
believed and still believe the same to be true. 

Specification 2. In this, that said Assistant Agent, in a 
speech before the Baltimore Annual Conference in March, 
1870, untruthfully asserted as follows: "A few days after 
the Committee met, a message came from a lawyer, stat- 
ing that he wanted to be present and hear the testimony 
read, taken at the previous investigation." 

Specification 2. I did, in my Baltimore speech, make the 
assertion set forth in specification 2, of charge third, and 
I deny that said assertion was untruthful. 

Specification 3. In this, that said Assistant Agent pre- 
sented to said Book Committee, and also before said Balti- 
more Annual Conference, a letter written by him, dated 
January 31st, 1870, in which it is untruthfully asserted 
that Mr. Fancher had made an application to be present 
before said Committee; also containing the further untruth- 
ful allegation that Mr. Fancher had made himself a 
partisan, and had spoken strongly in public and private 
against him. 

Specification 3. I have made the assertions set forth in 
specification 3, of charge third, and I deny that they are 
untruthful. 

Specification 4. In this, that said Assistant Agent, in his 
aforesaid Baltimore speech, uttered the following untruth- 
ful and slanderous language: 

" The lawyer thus admitted soon showed that he was 
there not so much to hear the testimony as to be the 
attorney for dishonest men who had been driven from the 
house, and the prosecutor of myself. Zealously did he 
apply himself to his work, and greatly did he seem disap- 
pointed when he saw the failure of his plans for my over- 
throw. I look back with wonder and horror upon these 
scenes— scenes in which official and unofficial persons, 
headed by a lawyer, labored and planned, day after day, to 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 149 

shelter guilty men, who, for long years, had enriched them- 
selves at the expense of the money and honor of the Book 
Concern, and to intimidate and overwhelm me, an officer 
of the Church, for no other offense than that of faithfulness 
to my duty. 

Specification 4. I did utter the language set forth in 
specification 4, of charge third, but I deny that it was 
untruthful or slanderous. 

Specification 5. In this, that the said Assistant Book 
Agent uttered the following untruthful and slanderous 
language in his said Baltimore speech: 

" If the Committee had met alone, without any outside 
influence, and if there had been no combination, I think 
their conclusion would have been different; but such a 
pressure, such a coming of men, and such a meeting of 
influences, I never saw. Men having no responsibility in 
the matter; men advising, pushing, lecturing, commanding, 
threatening, and planning, until an influence was started 
that looked more like my trial than the investigation of 
facts. I was catechised as if I were a thief, and treated as 
if I were a felon." 

Specification 5. I did utter the language set forth in 
specification 5, of charge third, but I deny that it was 
untruthful or slanderous. 

Specification 6. In this, that the said Assistant Agent 
made other untruthful and slanderous utterances in his 
said Baltimore speech; and, taken as a whole, the said 
speech is a disgraceful and abominable aspersion of the 
Book Committee, of the private character of reputable 
persons, and of the Methodist Book Concern. 

Specification 6. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication G, of charge third. 

Specification 7. In this, that said Assistant Book Agent 
has frequently, during his term of office, charged S. J. 
Goodenough, who for many years was Superintendent 
of the Printing Department of said Book Concern, and all 
that time a member of the Church in good standing, with 
abominable crimes, calling him " that villain," a " thief," 
a " robber," and charging that he had stolen from the 
Book Concern thousands of dollars; whereas such charges 
were false. 

Specification 7. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 7, of charge third. This specification is a misrep- 



150 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

resentation of my charges against Mr. Goodenough, which 
charges I believe to be true and capable of proof. 

Specification 8. In this, that during his term of office the 
said Assistant Agent, without cause or provocation, peremp- 
torily ordered the Recording Secretary of the Board of 
Managers of the Missionary Society of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church never to come into the office of said Book 
Agents; in which office said Secretary has proper occasion 
frequently to be in relation to the affairs of said Missionary 
Society. 

Specification 8. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 8, of charge third. 

Specification 9. In this, that during his term of office, the 
said Assistant Agent has improperly ordered that books, 
pamphlets, etc., intended for the editorial department of 
the Sunday-school publications of the Church should not 
be sent to the room of the editor-in-chief, as has always 
been usual, but should remain with said Assistant Agent, 
and has grossly interfered with the prerogatives of said 
editor-in-chief in respect thereof, and maintained his right 
to do so in arbitrary and insulting language.* 

Specification 9. I deny the allegation contained in speci- 
fication 9, of charge third. 

CHARGE FOURTH. 

Insubordination to his Official Superiors, the Book Com- 
mittee, and Violation of His Pledges to Them. 

Specification 1. In this, that said Assistant Agent, during 
the session of the Book Committee in February, 1ST0, and 
while the Committee were investigating the official conduct 
of said Assistant Agent, and his acts and declarations 
respecting the affairs of said Book Concern, made concilia- 
tory pledges to them to the effect that, in his future conduct 
as such Assistant Agent, he would cooperate with the 
principal Agent in furthering the interests of the Book 
Concern, and would not further agitate the matters of the 
alleged frauds and losses of the Concern, or depart from the 
line of conduct in respect of those matters determined upon 

* The investigation of "Specification 8" would have shown how 
regular invoices of books received from the " London Tract Society," 
England, were disposed of, the Concern receiving no benefit, except 
from a few of them which we republished. 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 151 

by said Committee; whereas, immediately on the adjourn- 
ment of the Committee, the said Assistant Book Agent set 
ibout the repetition, printing, and dissemination of the 
same charges of alleged frauds and losses in the said Book 
Concern, and the same reproaches on its management 
vvhich had been examined by the Committee, and decided 
ly them to be unfounded. 

ANSWER TO CHARGE FOURTH. 

Specification 1. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fication 1, of charge fourth. 

Specification 2. In this, that the said Assistant Book 
^gent, by the publication and dissemination of a paper 
called " Statement to the Book Committee," signed J. 
Ianahan. and otherwise, has reaffirmed and republished 
s\ch unfounded charges, and thereby has fomented and 
increased public excitement and clamor against said Book 
Cmcern, in express violation of his aforesaid pledges, and 
in contempt of the authority of said Book Committee, to 
tli* injury of said Book Concern, and to the scandal of the 
Chirch, whose institution is thus unwarrantably assailed. 
Specification 2. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
fic;tion 2, of charge fourth, as the same are therein set 
forh. The " Statement " referred to was not published in 
vioation of any pledge, but was published during the ses- 
sion of said Book Committee, and furnished to said com- 
mitee in a printed form for their convenience. 

Specification 3. In this, that said Assistant Agent has 
refued, and continues to refuse, to submit to the advice, 
decison, and judgment of the said Book Committee; 
arrai;ns their motives, resists their authority and judg- 
ment and continues to make utterances of a disrespectful 
and ^subordinate character, in relation to the said Book 
ComUttee and its proper and official acts relative to the 
affair! of said Book Concern. 

Specfication 3. I deny the allegations contained in speci- 
Qcatioi :;. of charge 4, as set forth. I have aimed to treat 
the co.imittee with respect. The course I have pursued has 

been dictated by a due regard to the interests of the 
Churcl the Book Concern and the truth; and I am confident 

will so appear upon examination. 



152 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 



CHARGE FIFTH. 

Want of Business Qualifications and Capacity tor the Pro- 
per Discharge of His Official Duties as Such Assistant 
Book Agent. 

Specification 1. In this, that said Assistant Book Agent, 
during his term of office, has improperly assumed that 
large losses have befallen the said Book Concern from th» 
fraud and corruption of its employees, or some of their; 
and has made repeated, and public, and continuous charges 
of that nature, to the injury of the business of the Concerr, 
and the scandal of the Church; whereas, there was never 
any sufficient ground for such imputations, nor any proper 
excuse for the public promulgation of such charges. 



ANSWER TO CHARGE FIFTH. 

Specification 1. I deny the allegations contained in specie 
fication 1, of charge fifth; and for a further answer I he*e 
re-affirm the matters already set forth in my answer to 
specification 6, of charge first. (Page 144.) 

Specification 2. In this, that the said Assistant B«ok 
Agent, during his term of office, has made purchases of 
inferior printing ink, and caused the same improperly to 
be used in the printing of Church papers and publication, 
to the detriment of the business and reputation of aid 
Book Concern. 

Specification 2. I deny the allegations contained in sjeci- 
fication 2, of charge fifth. The charge will be found too 
frivolous for serious consideration. 

Specification 3. In this, that said Assistant Book igent 
has, during his term of office, made improper and urbusi- 
ness-like purchases of printing paper for said Book Cocern, 
to its pecuniary injury and the injury of its reputaton. 

Specification 3. I deny the allegations set forth in speci- 
fication 3, of charge fifth. 

Specification 4. In this, that said Assistant Book ^.gent 
has, during his term of office, occasioned losses andii fall- 
ing off in the business and profits of the establishmjut, by 
his aforesaid unwarrantable and public imputations /gainst 
said Book Concern, its management and employe^, and 
by his aforesaid unwarrantable refusal to contract the 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 153 

said libelous article in the New York Times, and the sanc- 
tion he has given to the damaging imputations of that 
article. 

Specification 4. I deny the allegations set forth in speci- 
fication 4, of charge fifth. 

Specification 5. In this, that the said Assistant Book 
Agent, in the particulars aforesaid, also in his demeanor 
toward friends of said Book Concern, and in his conduct 
and proceedings in respect of the publishing business of 
the Church, and the reputation of the Book Concern, has 
evinced, and continues to evince, a want of adaptability and 
fitness for his official duties as Assistant Agent of the 
Book Concern, and a want of proper personal interest in 
its welfare. 

Specification 6. In this, that said Assistant Book Agent 
is generally deficient in business tact, qualification, and 
capacity, for the proper discharge of his official duties in 
said Book Concern. 

For which sufficient causes, it is " necessary for the 
interests of the Church and the Concern," that the said 
John Lanahan should be suspended, and removed from his 
official relation to said Methodist Book Concern, as such 
Assistant Agent. 

Specification 5 and Specification 6. As to the allegations 
contained in specifications 5 and 6, ot charge fifth, I decline 
to make any answer until proof of the alleged incompe- 
tency has been furnished. 

New York, April, 1870. 

We, the undersigned, respectfully request the Book Com- 
mittee to convene and take action on the above charges 
and specifications as soon as practicable. (The narnes of 
the signers were given in the call for the third meeting, 
see page 123.) 

Rev. John Lanahan: 

Dear Sir.— The foregoing is a copy of one of the docu- 
ments alluded to in the inclosed notification, and described 
as marked A 1. 

I. S. BINGHAM, Sec. of Book Committee. 

The above array of names, charges and specifi- 
cations having failed to bring me into subordina- 



154 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

tion to the plans of my persecutors, five months 
after their presentation, the following "Supple- 
mentary Charges" were secretly gotten up and 
presented: 

SUPPLEMENTAL CHARGE AND SPECIFICATIONS. 

To the Book Committee appointed by the General Confer- 
ence of the M. E. Church: 
In addition to the charges and specifications heretofore 
made against Rev. John Lanahan, Assistant Book Agent, 
the undersigned hereby make and present the following 
supplemental charge and specifications against said Assis- 
tant Agent, to wit: 

CHARGE. 

Incompetency. 

Specification 1. In or about the month of January, 1870, 
said Assistant Agent, without consultation with the prin- 
cipal Agent, and without the knowledge and consent of 
said principal Agent, ordered a large quantity of printed 
sheet-stock, belonging to the Methodist Book Concern, and 
of one or more books, belonging to others, to be sold and 
disposed of as waste paper with paper shavings; included 
in which were numerous printed sheets of salable and 
standard works of much value, and some of which are 
in current demand for sale at said Book Concern; the 
total value of which, estimated at sales prices, exceeded 
thirty thousand dollars. By which incompetent and im- 
provident conduct, said Assistant Agent has subjected said 
Book Concern to large loss and damage; has rendered the 
same liable to one of the owners of said books for his dam- 
ages, occasioned by such improper destruction thereof; and 
has subjected the said Book Concern to a continuous and 
irreparable detriment, for the want of a supply of said 
works thus improperly destroyed. 

Specification 2. AVhereas, it has been the practice, when 
any sheet-stock or printed works belonging to the Metho- 
dist Book Concern were to be disposed of as waste paper, 
to make previous careful inquiry into the question of the 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAE COMMITTEE. 155 

value and prospects of sale of the same; and also, before 
ordering such disposition of any sheet-stock or printed 
books of said Book Concern, to take the judgment and 
advice of the principal Agent, the editors, the salesmen, and 
the foreman of the printing and bindery departments of 
the Concern; but the said Assistant Agent, ignoring such 
proper practice and advice, and resting the determination 
of such important question upon his own improvident and 
incompetent judgment, caused a large quantity of the sheet- 
stock of said Book Concern to be destroyed, by ordering 
the same sold for waste paper, as particularly mentioned 
in the aforegoing specification, to the great loss and incon- 
venience of said Book Concern, and to the discredit of its 
management. 
Dated, New York, October 24, 1870. 
(Signed) H. F. PEASE, 

J. O. HOYT, 

GEORGE LANSING TAYLOR, 
JOHN H. OCKERSHAUSEN, 
J. R. EDWARDS. 
A true copy. 

I. S. BINGHAM, Sec. of Book Committee. 

ANSWER TO THE CHARGE OF INCOMPETENCY. 

In answer to the first and second specifications of the 
" Supplemental charge," I deny them both as set forth. 

The facts in brief are these: 

After frequent consultations between the principal agent 
and myself in regard to renting the building in which the 
sheet stock is kept, he suggested that there was a large 
amount of dead stock therein that ought to be disposed of, 
and advised that I attend to it. Accordingly, I requested 
the Superintendent of the Bindery to examine and select 
Bald Btocfe with care and dispose of the same, which he 
did subsequently, making a proper report, which was duly 
entered on the books of the house. 

The value of this dead stock is grossly exaggerated, and 
the statements contained in the specifications convey a 
false impression. 

Dated, New York, January 12, 1871. 

JOHN LANAHAN. 



156 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

By way of further emphasizing the absolute 
unfairness and injustice of the Committee's pro- 
ceedings, I may here call attention to the fact 
that in all civilized tribunals before which char- 
ges are preferred, it is required that the accused 
be given formal notice, and be furnished a copy of 
the charges. In the former case, as I have stat- 
ed, the charges came to me anonymously, through 
the mail, from whom I never learned. But 
in this case, my first information was the an- 
nouncement of the " Supplementary Charges " by 
the Chairman, and the reading of them by the 
Secretary to the Committee! Perhaps this sud- 
den affair was intended as a surprise, especially 
as the meeting was held at Cincinnati, far off 
from my sources of information. If so, it was 
abortive. Such had been the conduct and meth- 
ods of the Committee, that no action of theirs 
could surprise me. I immediately telegraphed 
to New York, and by mail received a copy of a 
paper on file in the Printing Department, in 
the handwriting of S. J. Goodenough, dated 
January, 1868, showing that the "dead stock" 
had been listed "condemned" four months be- 
fore my connection with the Book Concern. A 
portion of the stock that had been so marked, 
I refused to allow to be sold. Of it, I distinctly 
recall the works of Bev. Dr. Jabez Bunting, a 
fraternal delegate from the Wesleyan Confer- 
ence, England, to the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church several years before. 

I also cited as evidence of the great reck- 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 157 

lessness in the printing of unsalable books, the 
statement of the Agents in their report to the 
General Conference a few years before, that they 
had sold at one time "forty-seven tons of dead 
stock, at $55 per ton; also a large quantity of 
bound books." The Committee, however, enter- 
tained the supplementary charges, and would 
no doubt have done so, even if I had shown that 
there had been no dead stock sold, or that Dr. 
Carlton or Goodenough had sold it, and invested 
the money in one or more of their numerous oil 
wells. 

After the charges, specifications and answers 
were read, Kev. Bishop Janes appeared before 
the Committee, and presented the following: 

To the Book Committee of tlie Methodist Episcopal Church: 

Dear Brothers.— In our relations to the Book Committee 
we desire to act on all questions with the utmost frankness 
and courtesy. Heretofore we have not been consulted by 
your body as to the questions involved in this investigation. 
Of this we do not complain; but it seems to us a point has 
now been reached when courtesy to the Committee, as well 
as a due regard to our own responsibilities in the premises, 
require us to make the following statement: 

1. In meeting with the Book Committee at their request 
to act concurrently with them in this investigation, we 
must not be understood as sharing in any sense or to any 
extent the responsibility of receiving or entertaining char- 
ges against an Editor or Agent, prepared or presented as 
these have been. Yet, as these charges have been received 
or entertained by the Committee, we consider it to be a 
duty to proceed with them in the investigation. 

i'. We cannot act as a concurrent authority in any inves 
tigation, except as to the official conduct of our Editor or 
Agent 

The Agents and the Editors, if travelling preachers, are 
amenable for their moral and ministerial conduct to the 



158 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

same ecclesiastical authority as are other ministers of the 
Church. They are members of Annual Conferences and 
are officially connected with quarterly conferences, and are 
thus placed under the jurisdiction of the presiding elder 
in the interval of the Annual Conferences. As Bishops we 
cannot consider and give official decisions upon such mat- 
ters as come properly under the jurisdiction of Annual 
Conferences when in session, or of presiding elders in the 
interval of said Conference. 

3. It has long been a rule in our judicial administration 
not to allow third parties to prefer charges of slander or 
of slanderous utterances, and this administration has never 
been excepted to by the General Conference. We must 
abide by this rule in this investigation, so far as we are 
concerned. 

4. We do not judge it proper for us to consider the gen- 
eral fitness or unfitness for the office of any man appointed 
by the General Conference as editor or agent, unless the 
cause of such alleged unfitness has occurred since his 
election. As provided in the Discipline, we may, in given 
contingencies, pass upon official conduct, but not upon 
general fitness for office, except as above. 

E. S. JANES, M. SIMPSON, 

L. SCOTT, E. R. AMES. 

The presentation of the above was followed by 
much discussion. Some of the Committee advo- 
cating a change of the charges and specifica- 
tions, the minority insisting that they had no 
right to change them after the trial had com- 
menced. By a majority vote it was decided that 
they had the right. In all their previous meet- 
ings they had acted upon the principle that they 
had a right to do as they pleased, because they 
were the Book Committee. And why relinquish 
that right now, when a crisis had come, not to 
the accused victim of their persecution, but to 
themselves? 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 159 

They saw that something more important to 
themselves than the Book Concern was in dan- 
ger, and that ordinary rnles and principles how- 
ever well established mnst be pnshed aside. 

Another annoyance came, when Dr. Bnckley 
inquired, whether Kev. George Taylor's name 
remained annexed to the charges, and read the 
following letter, which had been addressed to 
the prisoner at the bar: 

To the Rev. J. Lanahan, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir. — I feel I owe you a correct statement of 
the occasion of my name appearing on the paper presented 
to the Book Committee. I had no knowledge of the Book 
Room affairs, and took no interest in them more than peo- 
ple who read our public papers. I learned from these that 
a controversy was going on respecting the policy pursued 
by former officials, and that it was exceedingly desirable 
that peace should be restored as soon as possible. I was 
requested at the Book Room to sign a paper which was 
said to have been gotten up by a layman who seemed to 
have the desire to have things settled, and to think that 
your policy was an injury to the Book Concern; that the 
Committee ought to be called together to make a complete 
arrangement and settlement of matters, and that a few 
names only were necessary to accomplish this. The paper 
was read, and without the deliberation necessary on such 
an occasion, I hastily signed it— signed it without malice 
or ill-feeling, and with the idea it was to be a peace- 
ii nil sure. I trusted to the judgment of others, without 
examining the contents and forming a personal judgment 
about it; that is, I signed it because it was requested, and 
supposed it would ultimate in good for all concerned. 
Since then, I found I was mistaken. In conversing with 
Dr. Whedon, and other persons, who know more about 
these things than I do, I ascertained that my judgment 
was misled. I learned that your policy resulted in an 
improved standard of literature; that you were gentlemanly 
in bearing, and more than this, that the only possible way 
to settle matters at present would be by an appeal to the 



160 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

civil courts, where you could compel the attendance of 
witnesses, and such a course you desired. 

If I had known these things, I should never have signed 
the paper. If I had suspected an evil animus prompting 
the getting up of the paper, I should not have signed it. 
I did, without taking the time to canvass the merits of 
the case, what I feel I ought not to have done, but 1 
have expressed no judgment of the case to any one, and 
intend to do all I can to make the paper in the hands of 
the Court a dead letter, and to oppose any further action 
on the subject, and thus undo what I have done, if within 
the range of possibility. I voted for you at the General 
Conference, and expressed a friendly welcome when you 
came here, and have never had any reason not to continue 
friendly. I hope you will be divinely guided through all 
your tribulations, and may you enjoy the peace of God. 

I hope you will accept this explanation of the circum- 
stances of my signing the paper as a sincere statement, 
and rest assured of my regret, and of my good feeling 
toward you. Ever yours, in friendly regard, 

GEORGE TAYLOR. 

Flushing, L. I., June 4th, 1870. 

Dr. Buckley further annoyed the Committee 
by requesting that the signers of the charges be 
required to appear to be questioned as to their 
knowledge of the matters involved, and said: 
" Seventeen ministers and laymen signed the 
charges, and I will prove by eight of them that 
they had never read the paper they had signed." 

Dr. Henry Slicer said, "The persons who 
signed the charges know nothing about the sub- 
ject matter. They were asked to put their 
names upon a paper, and did so, as a certain kind 
of people might do to hang a respectable indi- 
vidual, without knowing anything of the motives 
of the persons requesting them to sign. They 
might have gotten seventeen hundred signers. 



FOrRTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 161 

I now move, sir, that the signers of these charges 
be required to appear here to be questioned." 
The Chairman decided that he had no authority 
to send for the signers, and the Committee sus- 
tained his decision. 
Dr. Buckley renewed his request, and said: 

It is a flagrant violation of the discipline, which requires 
that accusers and accused he brought face to face. 
I will undertake to prove that there are not three of 
them who know anything about the affair, i will under- 
take to prove that four of them would be as willing to 
sign a bill of charges against Dr. Carlton as against Dr. 
Lanahan; that a deliberate plan was arranged to secure 
these signers, and that they signed in response to a 
request, and that this thing was never investigated by 
the Committee, but with remarkable rapidity they accepted 
these statements, allowing them to come by a president 
and secretary without ever taking the pains to inquire 
whether a large majority of the signers instructed these 
persons to represent them or whether they acted unani- 
mously. We will undertake to prove further that if these 
men are brought here, several will be found who will say 
that they were made fools of. We will prove that they 
have said it to responsible persons. We want to know why 
they have brought these allegations. We ask that, before 
the investigation proceeds, the signers of this bill of charges 
be brought before us that we may know why they signed 
it. We claim it as a reasonable request. 

Further objections were made and Rev. F. A. 
Blades, Chairman of the Committee, said: 

The signers <»c the charges have appointed their Chair- 
man and Secretary i<» appear, and as they have appeared 
before the Committee, that is sufficient. 

Mr. Buckley pressed his point again. He said: 

Mr. Chairman, we will make <>m- request in due form. 
There seems t<> ho a misunderstanding as to what we want. 



1G2 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

I wish, sir, that we — not the Committee— may meet our 
accusers face to face. We are not content to have a secre- 
tary and chairman of some committee that met— we cannot 
tell where or under what circumstances— and were 
wrought upon by influences we know not what— come and 
say that they were authorized to represent the prosecutors. 
It has been intimated by the Secretary of this Committee 
that Dr. Lanahan might have refused to come here. I 
think if Dr. Lanahan had not come here it would only be 
right to take his absence as prima facie evidence of guilt. 
We ask to meet these men. We have met them in private, 
and some of them apologized to us. They have said they 
did not know what they were about. Some of them say they 
would have just as soon charged Dr. Carlton. We do not 
wish to delay this investigation, but we consider this a 
reasonable request— that all the signers of this bill of 
charges be requested to appear here as soon as possible. 
We shall see how many of them will come. 

The Secretary declared that he would resign 
rather than sign such an order as Dr. Buckley 
requested. The Chairman again ruled out the 
request and a majority sustained the ruling. 

Civilization, to say nothing of Christianity and 
the law of the Methodist Episcopal Church, re- 
quires that accusers and accused be brought face 
to face. But the Book Committee were superior 
to all authority and usage, civil and ecclesias- 
tical, and in all cases ruled to protect themselves 
from the exposure impending and the accom- 
plishment of the object for which they had met — 
namely to get me out of the way. 

After some further discussion, the order of the 
day was, on motion, resumed. 

Mr. Fancher, for the prosecution, offered in 
evidence a copy of the New York Times, Septem- 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL CO^XMITTEE. 163 

ber 21st, 1 869, containing an article on the al- 
leged frauds in the Book Concern. 

Judge Reynolds.— I object. This is entirely out of the 
usual course of testimony. You must first show that Dr. 
Lanahan was responsible for the article in the Times. 

The Chairman ruled the objection ont and the 
Times was admitted, but not referred to after- 
ward. 

Dr. Curry, Editor of the Christian Advocate, 
was called by the prosecution, and before his 
cross-examination was ended the Committee 
sought their usual resort — secret session. It be- 
came apparent that they saw they were about to 
be shamefully exposed and humiliated. When 
they resumed open session they ordered the stop- 
page of taking testimony, and sought shelter un- 
der quibbles about the Bishops' paper. The time 
to have done that was on the presentation of the 
paper, but they had been so accustomed to dis- 
regard order, propriety, right and justice, every 
thing — that they felt free to do what they 
thought would best serve their purpose, which 
was to shield themselves from exposure by get- 
ting the Assistant Agent out of the Book Con- 
cern. His assistance had been of a disagreeable 
kind, and that had made him a disagreeable 
character. Rev. J. H. Moore led off against the 
Bishops. The result shows how completely their 
quibbles were exposed: 

Mr. Moore said:— There is one statement which I wish 
to contradict, and that is, that the Bishops have never been 



164 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

consulted with regard to this trial. It may be truthfully 
declared that, officially, the Committee has not consulted 
with the Bishops in the course which it has seen fit to 
pursue in the charges against Dr. Lanahan; but the Bishops 
have been privately consulted by members individually in 
their efforts to subserve the interests of the Book Concern. 
These troubles came under our knowledge as guardians of 
the Book Concern, and in the interests of the Church, we 
investigated the charges preferred by Dr. Lanahan. Char- 
ges were subsequently made against Dr. Lanahan, and in 
our official capacity, we decided that the Assistant Book 
Agent should be suspended from office. For the first time, 
the Bishops are now officially called upon to act as a 
concurrent authority, but they have frequently been con- 
sulted privately by members of the Committee, and have 
given counsel in this matter. 

Bishop Simpson. — Do I understand my friend to say that 
the Bishops have been consulted previously in this case? 
I understand him to say that they had been consulted. All 
I have to say is that I have not been consulted; my col- 
leagues can answer for themselves. 

Bishop Scott.— I have never, in a single instance; not a 
single word has been said to me. 

Bishop Ames.— To the best of my recollection, I have 
never been consulted in any instance. 

Bishop Janes.— The language of Mr. Moore that we have 
been consulted about these Book Room troubles, in my 
judgment, is wholly inappropriate to our paper. Our paper 
refers simply to this investigation. On this subject I say 
I have not been consulted. I spoke to two of the members 
of the Committee, and expressed to those members my 
opinion of some of those charges— that they did not come 
under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Mr. Moore was 
one, and the chairman was the other. That is the consul- 
tation so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Moore.— I had no reference to the present position 
of things as to the arrest and charges preferred against 
Dr. Lanahan. I meant simply to declare that members 
of the Committee had entertained so much confidence in 
the Bishops that they would not for a moment hesitate to 
confer with them in reference to any prudential measure 
connected with the troubles of the Book Concern. I did not 
for a moment wish to be understood that in any injudicious 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 1G3 

manner the Bishops had been tampered with. I now say 
that the Committee never was under any obligation to con- 
sult the Bishops until they had determined to arrest Dr. 
Lanahan, and had determined to inform them in pursuance 
of the law of the Church. I only wished to say that this 
Committee felt no disposition to stand aloof from the 
Bishops or to conceal anything from them. 

Bishop Janes.— We said in the paper that we had not 
been consulted by your body as to the questions involved 
in the investigations; we have been consulted in the gen- 
eral interests of the Book Concern; I was so consulted 
quite as much as I desired to be. In regard to the manner 
of this trial the Bishops have never felt that the Com- 
mittee was under any obligations to consult with them; 
we do not complain of it — we never have complained of 
it — but we simply have expressed the rule which we think 
must govern us; Ave waited until the charges had been 
read and responded to, and the counsel representing the 
prosecutors rose to make his opening speech, and we felt 
that then was the time to state to the Committee, not 
what should govern them, but what must govern us. 

Mr. Woodruff.— I am under the impression that this in- 
vestigation may now go on. The Book Committee have 
the charge of this investigation; the Bishops are the con- 
current authority. It is nothing to us what they do. They 
must act for themselves, and on their own responsibility. 
We have our duty, and must be answerable for ourselves— 
though I think that the Committee have the right to feel 
sensitive at any seeming public condemnation at this stage 
of the proceedings, and therefore I think the inquiries of 
Mr. Moore are pertinent. 

Bishop Janes.— The Bishops in executive session present- 
ed a paper showing what they considered to be their privi- 
leges. A question was asked of us about the open doors, 
and that was the only question submitted to us. If the 
Committee accept our statement, all right; if they do not, 
wo cannot help it. We have no sensitiveness; we intend 
calmly, and in the fear of God, to meet our responsibilities, 
;iik1 whet her we are complained of by the Committee or 
not. 

The Secretary.— The Committee have not complained of 
tin- paper presented by the Bishops. On the first day of 
the session, we called an executive session, with a view of 



166 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

consulting the Bishops officially, and we did consult with 
them on the very first question. We wanted their counsel, 
but they refused to give it. I regret any seeming condem- 
nation of our procedure. 

Bishop Simpson replied: Whatever may have been in the 
past, the Bishops and the Book Committee never had any 
coordinate legal relation until the Bishops received a note 
from the Book Committee requesting them to be here. 
Then commenced their relations in this investigation. In 
obedience to that note, the Bishops who are present came. 
The Bishops thought proper to communicate to the Com- 
mittee the part they understood themselves entitled to take 
in this investigation. They are not part of the Committee, 
and have no voice in the rules of order; but they had a 
right to ask for any information to enable them to form 
a correct judgment. Up to the reading of the document in 
this Committee, the Bishops, as a body— I, myself, for 
one— had never seen the charges. They find that some of 
the specifications were couched in language which they 
doubted the admissibility of. They thought it was their 
duty to say to the Committee how far they considered 
themselves authorized to go. Had that bill of charges been 
submitted to the Bishops in executive session, and they 
had been asked how far they could sit, they would have 
much preferred to give the Committee alone their opinion. 
But they never were presented to them. They never had 
seen them as a whole until they were presented here; 
and, they thought it was a duty to the Committee and to 
themselves, under their responsibility to the General Con- 
ference, to state that they could not go into the investiga- 
tion of moral character. Now, whatever the Committee 
may think of the wisdom or unwisdom of this course, the 
Bishops hold that they are at liberty only to do the work 
which the General Conference gives them to do. If the 
Bishops had allowed the Committee to proceed for days 
with this investigation, and then said, " We do not think 
these things come within our prerogative," then the Com- 
mittee would have had a right to complain, and say: 
" Why didn't you say this before? " We presented that 
paper the first time we could. I do not believe that it 
was anything but kind feeling toward tho Committee on 
the part of the Bishops. 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 167 

From the above it is apparent that the Com- 
mittee wanted the Bishops to have carried on 
a kind of hugger-mugger with them, jnst as they, 
at their previous meetings had hugger -mnggered 
with the official editors, the Senior Agent, the 
Agents of the Western Book Concern, and Mr. 
E. L. Fancher, all of whom were bent on forcing 
me out of the Book Concern, regardless of the 
means employed. When was it ever heard that 
a court of last resort hugger-muggered with a 
lower court to keep it from blundering, or help 
it commit crimes? I greatly preferred that the 
trial should go on as it was proceeding, or as the 
charges might be "amended" — anything — for I 
was prepared to scatter them and their authors, 
as chaff before the wind, and they evidently real- 
ized it. 

The Committee was now on trial instead of 
"the accused." They saw that the testimony 
would reveal to the Church and the public a 
state of things which they could not under 
any circumstances allow to be exposed, and to 
get out of the net of their own weaving they 
again betook themselves to their favorite resort 
— secret session — from which reporters for the 
press and the public were excluded. It was the 
spectacle of a tribunal that united in itself the 
prerogatives of judge and jury in the midst of 
a trial, stopping proceedings to hold secret con- 
sultations affecting the accused, and he not 
allowed to be present! Outside the Spanish In- 
quisition, I judge the like was never heard of 



1G8 FOURTH MEETING <>F GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

before — among- civilized people at least. But, as 
I have said, the Committee was now on trial, 
and were thus forced by the circumstances of 
their extraordinary position, to do extraordi- 
nary tilings. I made no objection; it would have 
been useless to have done so, but calmly awaited 
their return to publicity, prepared to meet any 
new turn they might give to the pending issue. 
They remained in their hiding place three days 
planning a way of escape for themselves. Dur- 
ing those days propositions were sent to me for 
" a settlement of the difficulties." Among them 
the withdrawal of the charges and the abandon- 
ment of the suit by Goodenough, to which I made 
but one reply: " The trial must go on or an hon- 
est examination of my charges must be had." 
To get that I was willing to endure any amount 
of injustice. Finally, during secret session, the 
Committee, without any assent from me, decided 
to withdraw the charges; abandon the trial; 
reinstate me in my office; and order the exami- 
nation which I demanded — all of which was an 
open confession of their guilt, and that they, 
not the signers, controlled the charges! Accord- 
ingly, when public session was resumed, the fol- 
lowing Avas presented and adopted: 

Resolved, That all questions of business arrangements 
and methods in the Book Concern be referred to a sub- 
committee <>f three members of this General Committee, 
and Rev. Bishop Scott, which committee shall have power 
to call to their aid such accountants as they may deem 
necessary, and that the decisions of all questions of law 
which may arise, and also of the approval of the selection 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 169 

of accountants, be referred to Rev. Bishop Scott and E. 
L. Fancher, and Hon. G. G. Reynolds. This sub-committee 
make their report to the General Committee at their annual 
meeting in February, 1872, so that the matter referred to. 
with all necessary information, may be presented by the 
Committee in their quadrennial report to the General 
Conference of 1872. 

(For the action of this Sub-coniniittee, see next 
Chapter.) 

Immediately upon the adoption of the above, 
on motion of Eev. L. M. Vernon, the following 
was adopted: 

Resolved, That Dr. Lanahan's suspension ceased on the 
adoption of the foregoing resolution, and that he continues 
in the full exercise of his office. 

I had instructed my counsel not to withdraw 
my answer unless the charges were unqualifiedly 
withdrawn, and to put the withdrawal in writ- 
ing to prevent misrepresentation by the Com- 
mittee, and the Christian Advocate. The fol- 
lowing is given as reported in the New York 
papers : 

Mr. Fancher, senior counsel for the complainants, of- 
fered to withdraw the charges on condition that the an- 
Bwers to them be withdrawn. Judge Reynolds, counsel for 
the defense, replied: "The answers cannot be withdrawn 
While the charges or allegations stand against them." 
Whereupon Mr. Fancher said: " I will not stand upon tech- 
Dicality, but will lead in the matter and withdraw the 
charges." 

Judge Reynolds then read the following re- 
sponse: 

The charges and specifications against Dr. Lanalian 
having been withdrawn, I am now authorized by him to 



170 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

withdraw the answer to the same. This must be distinctly 
understood to be by no agreement or preconcert, but it is 
in consequence of the voluntary withdrawal of the charges 
and specifications. 

GEORGE G. REYNOLDS. 

Three members of the majority presented a 
protest against the withdrawal of the charges, 
and assigned the following reasons: 

1. Because, having received and entertained the charges, 
and cited the party concerned to appear, and who accord- 
ingly is present, and prepared and willing to proceed, and 
because the investigation has already commenced, the 
charges having been read and responded to, we know of 
no sufficient cause for such suspension. 

2. Because we are satisfied that the Church expects, and 
has a right to demand, such investigation at our hands, 
and will be satisfied with nothing less. 

3. Because we cannot consent to place ourselves before 
the community in a light subjecting us, with apparent 
cause, to the charge of covering up and concealing wrong. 

" Covering np and concealing wrong " had been 
practiced from the beginning, and those protest- 
ants had been active participants in it, but they 
were not of the managing members, and seemed 
not to realize the impending humiliation which 
awaited themselves and their associates if the 
trial had gone on. 

At the close of the trial, I received the follow- 
ing letter from a prominent lawyer and honored 
member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
whose knowledge of the case was gotten from 
the published proceedings. I have never met 
him, but when I determined to publish this nar- 
rative, upon application, he promptly gave per- 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 171 

mission to include Ms letter. It shows how fully 
the merits of the case were comprehended by 
an outsider: 

JAMES F. RUSLING, 

Counsellor-at-Law, 

Office IS East State Street, 

Trenton, N. J., January 23d, 1871. 
Rev. Dr. Lanahan: 

My Dear Sir and Brother.— If it is not too late, pray 
allow me to congratulate you on your restoration again to 
duty. A complainant arraigned by the complained of— an 
accuser on trial by the accused— a prosecutor of the pleas 
prosecuted by the criminal at the bar — was a spectacle to 
make both men and angels shudder! But now that this 
hideous mockery of both law and justice has collapsed, I 
don't know which to wonder at most— the essential wick- 
edness of the Committee, or its fatuity. The Bishops 
behaved nobly, and they deserve the thanks of the Church 
and of the world, for their pure and unadulterated good 
sense. Meanwhile, I rejoice, that a trustworthy commis- 
sion has been created to take up your investigation and 
probe the Concern to the bottom. If there is not something 
" rotten " in that " State of Denmark," then the Book 
Committee are void of common sense. Supposing the Con- 
cern to be " fishy," they have acted now just as they would 
have acted then. I am glad you have stood firm, and God 
has vindicated you— He always will, when we stand to 
our pins! 

Rejoicing with you every way, and bidding you " God- 
speed," I remain, 

Very truly, JAS. F. RUSLING. 

The following editorial, from the pen of that 
eminent Presbyterian Divine, Dr. Irenaeus Prime, 
in the New York Observer, January 26th, 1871, 
further shows the estimate of the case by un- 
prejudiced minds without: 

This case has become one of public interest, and one 
in which the interests of the public, and especially of the 



172 FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 

whole Christian Church are concerned. The public demand 
—and they have a right to demand in the name of com- 
mon honesty, and The whole Church demands in the name 
of our (•< million Christianity— that a thorough, impartial 
investigation of the original charges against the manage- 
ment of the Methodist Book Concern be now made. If 
this is not done, public morals and religion will receive a 
heavier blow than any that could be aimed by the avowed 
enemies of truth and righteousness. 

The sudden collapse of the trial of Dr. Lanahan, his 
reinstatement into office by the men who suspended him 
before trying him, and the abandonment of all attempt to 
prove anything wrong in him, while a Committee is set 
to investigate the Book Concern management, constitute 
a remarkable vindication of Dr. Lanahan's honesty, fidelity 
and courage. His accusers ought now to bo prosecuted, 
r.nless they speedily repent. 

It is thus God interposes to deliver his servants in the 
hour of their peril. It appeared to be a foregone conclu- 
sion, as Dr. Lanahan was to be tried by the same Commit- 
tee which had hastily suspended him without trial, that he 
would be incontinently condemned by those who had in- 
jured him already. But the trial had scarcely begun before 
it was perceived that his accusers were on trial, and not 
the prisoner at the bar. Something must be done, and 
it was done. The trial was abandoned. The charges were 
all withdrawn. The prisoner was restored to liberty and 
power. 

And now a Committee is to overhaul the Book Concern. 
It is not such a Committee as ought to have it in charge. 
It is composed of three members of this same court that 
was trying Dr. Lanahan. Not one of that Committee ought 
to be on it. Outside men, business men, laymen, Methodists, 
if they must be — but better still, business men with no 
bias for or against the Concern; such a court only is com- 
petent to meet the moral and reasonable demand of the 
Christian Church— that this scandal shall be probed to 
the bottom and the uttermost truth laid naked to the eyes 
of men, as it is in the sight of Him who seeth in secret 
Nothing short of this will satisfy, or ought to satisfy, the 
oppressed sentiment of the religious community. 



FOURTH MEETING OF GENERAL COMMITTEE. 173 

Referring to the above editorial, the Christian 
Advocate charged the Observer with being actu- 
ated by " bigotry and sectarian prejudice." 

During this meeting of the Committee, Rev. 
Bishop Ames preached a sermon in St. Paul's 
Church, on Daniel in the lion's den, 6th Chapter. 
He enlarged npon the conspiracy of Daniel's as- 
sociates, and the results. From remarks made 
by Mr. Fancher, as he passed out of the Church, 
it was apparent that he was much interested in 
the sermon. 



CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EPISCOPACY. 

The failure of the Committee to bring the 
Bishops into agreement with their plans created 
much bad feeling toward thein, and immediately 
upon adjournment consultations were had pre- 
liminary to an attack upon the Episcopal Office. 
E. Grant, who had been lifted into significance 
by the secret increase of his salary from $2,000 
to $4,000, had declared: "If the Bishops do not 
agree with the Committee, the next General Con- 
ference will take from them their power." About 
this time a letter appeared in an unofficial 
Church paper, giving " the secret history and 
mystery of an attempt to overthrow the Episco- 
pal office." Correspondence was had East and 
West as to who should begin the attack, and it 
was agreed that it should be commenced in the 
Pittsburgh Advocate. Accordingly, January the 
25th, an editorial appeared in that paper, headed 
"Modification of the Episcopacy," which was 
immediately republished in the Christian Advo- 
cate, and referred to approvingly by the Western 
Advocate, thus showing that an agreement had 
been entered into to carry on the attack all along 
the lines of the official press. The following is 
from the Pittsburgh Advocate: 

Events and facts now entering influentially into the 
make-up of our history are driving us, despite our strong 
174 



CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EPISCOPACY. 175 

personal passion for conservatism, to the belief that this 
office in our Church is needing serious modification. Facts 
now in process of development compel us to think that a 
periodically elective Episcopacy would be preferable to a 
life-tenure. 

The "facts now in course of development " 
was the refusal of the Bishops to be used by 
the combination. 

Next the Christian Advocate commenced a 
series of long editorials on "Methodist Episco- 
pacy." Of the office the Advocate said: "That 
it has worked well and produced valuable results, 
is a good way to justify the assumption that it 
is in an eminent sense the creature of Provi- 
dence. But whether it is the purpose of Divine 
Providence to employ it further, in its present 
form, or subject it to considerable changes, or 
entirely take it away, are legitimate questions." 
Again, the Advocate, referring to the Book Kooni 
trouble, said: "The affair is becoming alarm- 
ing; and if, as we are told, the Bishops sustain 
the course of factionists against the regularly 
constituted Church authorities, as it is certain 
that other trusted servants of the Church do, 
it is time that it should be known." 

Were not the Bishops a part of the regularly 
constituted Church authorities? Or, were the 
Book Committee, the official editors, the Book 
Agents (myself excepted, of course), Mr. E. L. 
Fancher, and Rev. H. F. Pease, "the regularly 
constituted Church authorities?" The above im- 
plies that they were not, and had no right to 
exercise their own judgment. So offensive had 



17G CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EPISCOPACY. 

the above "self-constituted authorities" become 
in their zeal to damage me, and conceal the 
frauds, that Bishop Simpson felt justified in say- 
ing to one of them, Eev. S. 11. Nesbet, editor of 
the Pittsburgh Advocate, " It is in bad taste for 
officers of the General Conference to be meddling 
in matters with which they properly have noth- 
ing- to do." The remark, greatly angered the 
meddlers, and when the Avar on the Bishops was 
commenced, it was quoted in the Pittsburgh 
Advocate. There was method in all this mad- 
ness! 

Again, July 13th, the Advocate said: "The 
Episcojml Office is beset about with many deli- 
cate relations and duties, and that fact imposes 
upon its incumbents a necessity for great circum- 
spection and careful avoidance of all occasions 
of offense. The experience of the last few days 
has showm the undesirableness of the connection 
of the Bishops with the care of the Book Con- 
cern." "Avoidance of all offense" against 
whom? It was not difficult to understand these 
hints, which were really threats. 

Next the Western Advocate took up the sub- 
ject, and January 25th, said: 

Among the modifications suggested, is the limitation of 
the term of Episcopal service. This point is being agitated 
quietly, but pretty generally throughout the Church. We 
mistake the signs of the times if the quadrennial election 
of Bishops be not one of the stirring questions of the next 
General Conference. It has long been felt that the life- 
tenure of this office was an exceptional thing in our econ- 
omy, .mikI such a one as could not be defended in harmony 
with the universally prevalent ideas of Methodism in re- 



CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EPISCOPACY. 177 

gard to orders. We have always acknowledged a discrep- 
ancy between the teaching and practice of the Church at 
this point, and if the Methodist theory is ever to be made 
practical, there will probably never come a more favorable 
time for the change than now. We may hereafter have 
something to say on the constitutional aspects of this ques- 
tion. 

Again the Western, of April 5th, said: 

The discussion which has sprung up in the Church in 
relation to the Episcopal Office is taking a wide range- 
ministers and laymen take hold of it with a will, showing 
that there has been a deep feeling in restraint for a long 
time, which reveals itself, not in passionate outbursts, but 
in thoughtful anxiety for the welfare of the cause of Christ 
and the efficiency of Methodism. 

We never liked the life-tenure of the office, because it 
seemed exceptional in our economy, and placed us in an 
awkward attitude before the Churches on the subject of 
orders. There is also a possibility of bringing upon the 
Church a heavy burden, and of creating a caste in the minis- 
try that ought not to exist. To us it is plain that a pro- 
vision for superannuating the Bishops in the Annual Con- 
ference, just as other disabled men are superannuated, will 
afford the Church relief. 



THE BISHOP SCOTT SUB-COMMITTEE. 

The Sub-committee of which Bishop Scott was 
Chairman, was composed of Kev. I. S. Bingham, 
and J. Rothweiler of the majority, and Rev. L. 
M. Vernon of the minority, with Mr. E. L. Fan- 
cher and Judge Reynolds to decide all questions 
of law and the selection of accountants. Soon 
after the general Committee adjourned, it began 
to be made apparent that this elaborately consti- 
tuted commission was a carefully devised plan 
to get rid of the investigation of the charges 
upon which I had been suspended, the investiga- 
tion of which would have demonstrated the 
truth of my allegations. 

Before the Sub-committee met, the Christian 
Advocate, whose utterances from the beginning 
had been a law unto the Committee, made the 
following announcement : 

It is not true that the investigation of the frauds in the 
establishment was referred to the Sub-Committee. On the 
contrary, the Book Committee officially decided, after a 
long and thorough investigation, that there were no frauds, 
as alleged, to be investigated; and precisely what that 
Committee referred to the Sub-Committee was "all ques- 
tions of business arrangements and methods in the Book 
Concern," with power to call to their aid such accountants 
as they might deem necessary. 

And the Western Advocate of April 12th, said: 

The Sub-Committee was not appointed to investigate 

178 



THE BISHOP SCOTT SUB-COMMITTEE. 179 

frauds in the Book Concern, as the Book Committee long 
ago decided unanimously that there had been no frauds. 

"Decided unaniniousl y ! " Had tlie editor of 
the Western forgotten what a minority had said 
in their published report, and that February 23d, 
1870, in an editorial headed, "Beport of the 
Book Committee," he said: "On the question 
concerning the conduct of employees of the Bind- 
ery, four were of the opinion that all was not 
right. Three of them signed a minority report 
which sets forth in full their views of the mat- 
ter." 

According to the above, the charges which I 
still adhered to, and the examination promised, 
related only to "questions of business arrange- 
ments and methods." Referring to these re- 
markable statements, Judge Beynolds, in a pub- 
lished letter, said : " It leaves the Committee in 
the sad plight of having torn out the vitals of 
the whole investigation, and then called one of 
the Bishops of the Church and three of their 
own members to convene in Xew York from dis- 
tant points, all for the purpose, not of satisfying 
the Church as to the truth of the charges, but 
simply 'the forms of business' under an admin- 
istration now near its end. The public will not 
justify all this expenditure of time and money 
for any such puerile object as this." 

in the same published letter, Judge Beynolds 
said: "The only law question propounded to Mr. 
Fancher and myself was whether, in the inves- 
tigation, the Book Committee had a right to go 



180 THE BISHOP SCOTT SUB-COMMITTEE. 

back of 1868, the time of their appointment. 
This was answered in the affirmative by myself— 
I have never heard how by Mr. Fancher; bnt the 
raising of the question by those representing the 
majority of the Book Committee was quite sig- 
nificant." 

That remarkable question had also been previ- 
ously raised by some of the majority in the Gen- 
eral Committee. Dr. Carlton's contention was 
that they had no right to go back of the time 
of their appointment. 

At the first meeting of the Bishop Scott Com- 
mittee, Judge Keynolds proposed that each side 
should name an equal number of accountants, 
leaving the Committee to select one from each 
list, and that the Committee should appoint a 
chief accountant to superintend the work. To 
this no response was given by Mr. Fancher. In 
the absence of Judge Beynolds, the Sub-commit- 
tee unanimously selected three accountants, of 
whom Mr. J. Van Vleck was one, and submitted 
their names to Messrs. Fancher and Reynolds. 
Mr. Fancher objected to approving them "by 
the bulk." Judge Reynolds gave his approval 
in writing provided all three were confirmed. 
Mr. Fancher was especially anxious to have Mr. 
J. Van Vleck appointed chief accountant, he to 
select his assistants. What other two Mr. Fan- 
cher favored was not made known. Judge Rey- 
nolds objected to Mr. Van Vleck's selecting the 
other two, on the ground that several years be- 
fore he had professed to have examined the books, 



THE BISHOP SCOTT SUB-COMMITTEE. 181 

and reported that they were all right. Such was 
the persistent anxiety to have Mr. Van Yleck 
appointed "Chief Accountant, he to select assis- 
tants," that E. Grant, book-keeper, had the inso- 
lence to write a letter to Bishop Simpson, at his 
home in Philadelphia, stating that there were 
"many awkward entries in the books which 
would speak badly for the house unless charit- 
ably dealt with," and urged him to use his influ- 
ence to have Mr. Van Yleck appointed. The 
Bishop promptly sent the letter to the Sub-com- 
mittee, enclosed in one from himself, expressing 
his estimate of Grant's impertinence. It must 
have been known that Mr. Van Yleck would 
"deal charitably" with the "awkward entries!" 
The Sub-committee, after a session of six days, 
unable to agree,, adjourned to meet March 29th. 
At that meeting the name of Mr. J. P. Kilbreth, 
of Cincinnati (a former book-keeper in the West- 
ern Book Concern, the twin brother of that in 
New York, whose agents were in thorough sym- 
pathy with Dr. Carlton and his management), 
was before the Committee, but he was not chosen. 
Judge Reynolds was willing to accept even Mm, 
provided others were chosen by the Committee, 
who had not been connected with either of the 
Concerns. Unable to agree, the Sub-committee 
adjourned sine die. The above facts show that 
Judge Reynolds approved three accountants 
unanimously chosen by the Committee in his 
absence, but Mr. Fancher was opposed to select- 
ing any "by the bulk." 



182 THE BISHOP SCOTT SUB-COMMITTEE. 

If there was nothing wrong in the books, why- 
was Mr. Fancher, who represented a majority of 
the Book Committee and Dr. Carlton, so hard to 
please in the selection of accountants? He was 
evidently acting under instructions. No account- 
ants could show fraud in the accounts if it did not 
exist, and if they did show it, their false showing 
could easily have been exposed by the party 
responsible for the accounts. Dr. Carlton knew, 
however, of the failure of the Committee to agree 
before it occurred, and had arranged with three 
accountants whose appointment he immediately 
announced in the following card: 



DE, CAKLTOX'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

Methodist Book Concern, 
New York, April 4th, 1871. 
Messrs. Yan Yleck, Callender and Gunn: 

Gentlemen.— As you have consented, in accordance with 
my request, to examine the accounts and business methods 
of the Methodist Book Concern, I desire to say: 

1. I wish the examination to be thorough and complete, 
and to cover the entire period of my agency from 1852 to 
the present time, or as much of that period as in your 
judgment is important and necessary to satisfy yourselves 
of the facts in the case. 

2. I wish you, first of all, to examine the cash accounts 
to ascertain what disposition has been made of the moneys 
received and whether all disbursements have been in the 
legitimate business of the house only. 

3. I also wish you to examine the general accounts and 
books of the house, to ascertain whether any fraudulent or 
corrupt acts or practices have obtained in the administra- 
tion of the affairs of the Book Concern. 

4. I wish you further to examine the business methods 
and arrangements of the house, to ascertain if, in your 
judgment, any change is necessary to secure the safe ad- 
ministration of its affairs. 

5. To afford you every possible facility for carrying for- 
ward these examinations, the books, accounts, and vouchers 
of the house are hereby placed at your disposal, and you 
are authorized to make inquiry of the Agent, of the Assis- 
tant Agent, of the Cashier, of the Principal Book-keeper, 
of the Assistant Book-keeper, and of any and all other per- 
sons in the employ of the Book Concern. 

<".. When you have completed your examination, I desire 
yon to report the result to me in such form as may suit 
your convenience. Respectfully, 

THOMAS CARLTON. 
1S3 



184 DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

Better instructions could not have been given, 
with one important exception — the accountants 
were to report the result to himself ! There was, 
however, a redeeming provision — "in such form 
as may suit your convenience." It will be seen 
that from circumstances which subsequently 
transpired, it suited the " convenience," honesty, 
and self -protection of the accomplished and ven- 
erable expert, Mr. John A. Gunn, in view of the 
great frauds he found in the account books, to 
"report the result" of his examination in a 
printed "form," which prevented it going into 
the hands of Dr. Carlton's especial favorite, Mr. 
J. Yan Vleck, to be "fixed" to suit the emerg- 
ency. 

Immediately upon the announcement of the 
above named accountants, I proposed to Dr. Carl- 
ton that he retain any two of the three, and that 
I name a third, to act with them, and thus make 
the examination mutual. Receiving no answer, 
I renewed the proposition in writing and received 
the following: 

Methodist Book Concern, 

New York, April 8, 1871. 
Rev. J. Lanahan, D. D.: 

Dear Brother.— I did not deem it necessary to reply in 
writing to your note of the evening of the 5th inst., inas- 
much as I stated to you personally at the time of its receipt 
my views of its contents; but having seen a communication 
in the New York Times of to-day from your attorney, 
Judge Reynolds, saying you had made certain propositions 
to me in writing to which I had not replied, I will now 
reply in writing. 

I stated to you that I had completed an arrangement 
with three accountants to make a thorough and full exam- 



DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 185 

ination of the books and accounts, and also of the business 
methods of the Book Concern, and I could not now con- 
sistently change these arrangements. Had your letter been 
handed to me when the proposal in it could have been 
made available, it would have been most cheerfully ac- 
cepted. When Judge Fancher said to me, while the Sub- 
committee was here the last time, " Suppose the committee 
select a chief accountant, and each of the Agents an assis- 
tant," I unhesitatingly replied, I will consent to such 
arrangements; the Judge immediately left, saying, "I will 
make the proposition to Bishop Scott." But now, after the 
said committee has adjourned sine die, and I have entered 
into other engagements, it is too late. But I will now say, 
in order to secure to you whatever benefit your proposed 
arrangement would afford if adopted, you shall be at full 
liberty, and are hereby requested, to lay before the account- 
ants the result of your examinations made heretofore into 
the affairs of the Book Concern, and any other matters 
pertinent on the subject j t ou may desire to submit in per- 
son or through the experts by whom your examinations 
have been conducted, or both, as to you may seem most 
expedient; and I will request the said accountants to give 
due consideration to whatever you or those experts may 
offer in the premises. Yours truly, 

THOMAS CARLTON. 

I then made the following proposition which 
I reasonably hoped would be "most cheerfully 
accepted :" 

New York, April 8, 1871. 
Dr. Carlton: 

I regret to find in yours of this date a refusal to agree 
to what was substantially your own proposition, namely, 
that you name the chief accountant and an assistant, and 
I name one assistant. You state as your reason that you 
have " completed arrangements with three accountants to 
make an examination." Such is my desire for a speedy 
and mutual adjustment of these matters, I now propose 
that you retain the three whom you may have engaged, 
and I employ one to act with them in the examination. 
But for the gravity of the matters involved, I might think 



186 DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

you jesting when you propose in lieu of my naming one 
of the examiners, that I lay before those chosen exclusively 
by yourself the result of my previous examinations. 

Yours truly, JOHN LANAHAN. 

The above proposition was also rejected. 

When the above card by Dr. Carlton was pub- 
lished, Mr. Gunn, employed by Dr. Carlton, had 
been at work on the books since the preced- 
ing January— about three months. Subsequent 
events show that the special object of the an- 
nouncement of the names of Messrs. Van Vleck 
and Callender was to get the former connected 
with the examination. 

The Christian Advocate stated that Mr. Van 
Aleck was a Methodist, Mr. Callender a Baptist, 
and that he was selected because of " his ability 
and high official position as United States Bank 
examiner," and one high in official position in 
the Church said to me that his official position 
would have great weight and influence. I replied, 
that official position, though it were that of 
the President of the United States, could not 
outweigh facts founded on truth; that I possess- 
ed the facts and had no concern about names 
or official position; all I desired was an honest 
examination. 

Of Mr. Gunn, the Advocate said: 

He is a Presbyterian. For twenty-five years he was a 
book-keeper, but for the last fifteen years has been em- 
ployed by leading business houses in this city as an expert 
in making similar examinations to those in which he is 
now engaged. Dr. Carlton had never met him until a few 
weeks ago, when, desiring to secure an able and impartial 



DR. CAM/TON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 187 

expert to test the correctness of the Book Room accounts 
(which were in private circles charged with error), he was 
recommended to him by several of the best business men 
of the city. His services were soon after secured, and he 
has since that time been engaged in examining the accounts. 
Probably no abler or more suitable experts could be found 
in the whole country. Their conclusions will be accepted 
by the business public, and also, we believe, by the great 
body of our people and the Christian community generally. 

I ask especial attention to the above endorse- 
ment of Mr. Gunn, as I shall furnish from his 
report the most conclusive evidence of long con- 
tinned mismanagement and fraud in the account 
books, and in the financial exhibits to the An- 
nual and General Conferences. 

Thus, it will be seen, that I accepted the " con- 
clusions " of Dr. Carlton's expert accountant — the 
only one of the three that examined — and I doubt 
not this conclusion will be accepted with amaze- 
ment and horror bj "the business public, and 
also by the great body of our people." 

Mr. Van Vleck had not yet appeared at the 
Book Kooms. Mr. Callender never appeared 
there. His name was used for effect. Mr. Gunn 
alone continued to examine, and his examination 
extended uninterruptedly through about fifteen 
months. I was informed that his compensation 
was |375.00 per month. Subsequently Mr. Yan 
Vleck called there in an apparently casual way 
every few weeks until he supposed Mr. Gunn 
was nearing the close of his examination, when 
his visits became more frequent, but he never 
looked at the books. It finally appeared, how- 
ever, that his visits had a deep meaning. 



188 DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

About December 14, 1871, Mr. Van Vleck came 
to tbe Book Concern, and I beard him and Dr. 
Carlton urging Mr. Gunn to give bim tbe result 
of bis examination so tbat be could write tbe 
report for tbe Book Committee. Mr. Gunn re- 
plied tbat be alone bad examined and must 
make bis own report. Dr. Carlton and Van 
Vleck stated tbat it was often tbe case tbat a 
Committee was appointed to examine accounts 
and tbat, although only one examined, all signed 
the report. Mr. Gunn answered, that he would 
not be a party to such transaction, and added, 
"Dr. Lanahan knows that Mr. Van Vleck has 
not examined and will so state, and thus invali- 
date the report." Mr. Gunn also reminded Dr. 
Carlton that he had notified bim, when the above 
card was published, that he would not act as one 
of a Committee if he alone was to examine, and 
again refused to give Mr. Van Vleck the papers 
containing the result of his examination. The 
interview was earnest and extended. Immedi- 
ately after it ended, Mr. Gunn handed me the 
following note: 

Dr. Lanahan, if you heard the conversation between 
Dr. Carlton, Mr. Van Vleck and myself— I suppose you did, 
your window being down— please record it; more at another 
time. J. A. G. 

I answered, "I have recorded it." This was 
the first interchange between Mr. Gunn and my- 
self. His examination was made in a small room 
connected with our office by a door and window; 
my desk was by the door and under the window, 



DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 189 

which was down from the top — thus I heard the 
conversation. 

I now felt free to call on Mr. Gunn, to hear 
what he desired to communicate. He said, 
"I wish to inform you how I came to be em- 
ployed by Dr. Carlton. A friend requested me 
to call on Mr. Van Vleck, who wanted some 
accounting done. I called, and he referred me 
to Dr. Carlton, giving me a note of introduction. 
Dr. Carlton said he wanted me to examine the 
accounts of the Book Concern. I told him I 
would do so, but not in the interests of any 
one party. We agreed upon terms, and I en- 
tered upon the examination in January (1871), 
when you were being tried by the Book Com- 
mittee. After your trial ended and the Sub- 
committee, of which Bishop Scott was Chairman, 
was appointed to select accountants, I received 
a note from Mr. Van Vleck, requesting me to call 
on him. I called, and he said he expected to be 
appointed chairman of a committee to examine 
the accounts of the Book Concern, and should 
desire me to assist him and give him the result 
of my examination so that he could write the 
report for the Book Committee. I told him that 
if I continued the examination, I would write 
my own report. After further conversation I 
left him, supposing I was understood." The 
above explains the anxiety of Mr. Fancher to 
have Mr. Van Meek appointed chief accountant. 

Mr. Gunn further stated that when Dr. Carl- 
ton published the card announcing the appoint- 



190 DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

ment of Messrs. Van Vleck, Callender, and him- 
self, lie told him he would not serve on such a 
committee, if he alone examined, and that Dr. 
Carlton assured him that their relation to the 
examination would be only nominal. At a 
subsequent interview, he said, "My work is 
purely professional — I have nothing to do with 
the controversy, and shall report what I have 
found in the books." He did not tell me what 
Ms report would be, nor did I care to know, as 
the result of my examination and that of my 
accountant had furnished facts sufficient to 
meet any issue that might be raised. 

He then said that he desired to communicate 
with some influential layman to whom he could 
make known the result of his examination, and 
named ex-Mayor Havemyer, who attended Sev- 
enth Avenue Church, of which Dr. Andrew 
Longacre was pastor, and which church Mr. 
Gunn attended during his examination, it be- 
ing near his boarding house. I suggested that 
he make his communication to Eev. Bishop 
Janes. He adopted the suggestion and called 
on the Bishop, who designated a day in the next 
week when he would have Bishop Simpson pres- 
ent. On the appointed day, Mr. Gunn met the 
two Bishops, at Bishop Janes' residence, gave 
them a statement of the results of his ex- 
amination, and expressed the opinion that Dr. 
Carlton would not present the report he in 
truth should be compelled to make. He also 
informed them of repeated efforts of Dr. Carl- 



DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 191 

ton and Mr. Van Yleck to get him to give the 
latter the result of his examination so that 
he could write the report for the Book Commit- 
tee to present to the General Conference. The 
result of the interview was that the Bishops 
advised Mr. Gunn so to take care of the result 
of his examination as to get his report before 
the General Conference. To make sure of this, 
Mr. Gunn then determined to deliver it to Dr. 
Carlton in a printed "form," which prevented 
it going into the hands of Mr. Yan Yleck in 
manuscript. 

Failiug in their plans to make Mr. Gunn their 
willing tool, after he had been at work on the 
books several months, Mr. J. P. Kilbreth, a for- 
mer book-keeper in the Western Book Concern, 
was brought from Cincinnati, Ohio. He could 
be trusted before he came ! In his report to the 
Book Committee, which they presented to the 
General Conference with much praise, he quotes 
resolutions of the Committee by which he was 
appointed. When I examined the records of 
the Committee there were no such resolutions 
in them. But it is a matter of no consequence, as 
the Committee and Dr. Carlton were one. The 
idea of the Committee — after all their tergiver- 
sations — appointing an examiner, needs no com- 
ment. To me Mr. Kilbreth was more amusing 
than otherwise. He moved about the building 
as one having authority, and called himself a 
" referee." He had perhaps been made to believe 
that he was one, as the Book Committee in their 



192 DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

report to the General Conference subsequently 
dignified him with that title, but took great care 
not to name any parties who had chosen him. 
Would any self-respecting man allow himself to 
be called a referee without being furnished with 
evidence that the parties in dispute had chosen 
him? 

Mr. Kilbreth requested me to lay before him 
my charges. Although I was confident he was 
employed by Dr. Carlton, I assented, stating that 
I would employ an accountant of my own choos- 
ing to assist him. To this he assented, but the 
next day withdrew his assent. He had no doubt 
received instructions. He applied to me for the 
records of the Book Committee which I had been 
examining and copying. By mistake in deliver- 
ing them, I gave him a printed paper prepared 
by my accountants, Messrs. E. H. Gouge and 
C. A. Appel, which I had not used, and requested 
its return, which he promised. The next day he 
refused. He had no doubt been instructed 
again. I then told him that any further com- 
munication between us must be in writing. In 
his report, after acknowledging that I refused 
to have anything to do with his examination 
unless represented by an accountant of my own 
choosing, on page 42 he says : " Dr. Lanahan, at 
the time, however, did hand me a printed report 
made by Mr. E. H. Gouge and C. A. Appel, 
professional accountants, who by him had been 
employed to inspect the book accounts of the 
House. To this report I shall devote some 
attention." 



DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 193 

Why did lie not honestly state how I came to 
" hand " him the " printed report ? " I had 
reason, however, to be pleased that he got it, 
notwithstanding his disreputable conduct, be- 
cause in devoting "some attention to it," he 
furnished material for the exposure of his at- 
tempted deception, which will be found in my 
citations from the report of Mr. Gunn. 

Of the financial management of the Book Con- 
cern, Mr. Kilbreth makes the following strong 
statement, page 44: "As to the financial depart- 
ment, I regard its management as above re- 
proach, and it is difficult for me to see how it 
could be improved." And again, on page 64, 
he spurns the idea of the Principal Agent's deriv- 
ing pecuniary benefits from his position, and 
says, " such a supposition, I am free to say, has 
not the slightest foundation. Dr. Carlton does 
not, and does not need to seek benefits from the 
funds of the Book Concern." I find it difficult 
to restrain the expression of my disgust and 
abhorrence of such statements from a man whom 
I must show to have been absolutely ignorant of 
the matter about which he was using such un- 
qualified language. If lie was not absolutely 
ignorant, what then? I beg the reader to keep 
in mind the above. 

Mr. Kil broth's report closes with these words 
to 1 lie Book Committee: " I request you to order 
nil appropriation, not exceeding $1,100, to cover 
my actual expenses, including a small sum for 
clerical assistance. The items will be furnished 



194 DR. CARLTON'S ACCOUNTANTS. 

at the time of payment. For my services I de- 
cline compensation." He received $1,192.25. 
Perhaps the additional $92.25 was received for 
"services" rendered in making the Committee 
of the General Conference believe that the 
management of the financial department was 
"above reproach." His "assistance" was from 
E. Grant, Dr. Carlton, Mr. E. L. Fancher, and J. 
Van Vleck, whom he consulted elsewhere than 
at the Book Concern. 



REPORT OF MR, JOHN A. GtUKS. 

I now ask attention to a few quotations from 
the report of Mr. John A. Gunn, who was endors- 
ed by the Christian Advocate as "an able and 
impartial expert," " recommended by some of the 
best business houses in this City, as an expert in 
making examinations similar to those in which 
he is now engaged," and who spent about fifteen 
months in a thorough examination of the books 
of the Concern. As already shown, he was se- 
lected by Dr. Carlton, and it hence would be 
natural to suppose that the results reached by 
him would be as favorable to the Senior Agent 
as the facts would allow. Any one examining 
his report will be convinced of the accuracy and 
care with which his work was done, and of the 
studied moderation with which his conclusions 
are stated. I cite only a few of these which, 
though they can but be at disadvantage, being 
isolated from their connection, are yet so obvi- 
ously conclusive of wrong intent as to convince 
even the most prejudiced and unbelieving. 

This able accountant analyzes the business of 
the Concern tor a period of nineteen years — from 
1852 (the year of Dr. Carlton's first election), to 
1871 — showing the yearly amount and increase 
of the capital siock as represented in the ledger, 

195 



196 REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 

and in the exhibits to the Annual Conferences, 
and reveals discrepancies of such amount and 
kind as could only be possible to business meth- 
ods of the most reprehensible and iniquitous 
character. That these methods were meant to 
shield, and did shield transactions whose crimi- 
nality needed concealment, is the only con- 
clusion to which they point, and which it is 
impossible in truth to avoid. That the real 
owner of the property, the Church, should thus 
be misled through a long series of years by those 
to whom its custody and management had been 
sacredly confided, as any reader must acknowl- 
edge, is absolutely horrible to think of! And 
this too, when the wrong-doers were receiving 
from the Church extravagant eulogiums upon 
their successful management as being " the right 
men in the right place." 

It is clear from the report of this accomplished 
accountant, who deeply studied and traced out 
all the manipulations, and the false entries and 
downright deceptions by which these anomalies 
were produced that he rose from his work with 
a profound impression of their evil significance. 
His closing words are these: "There can be 
no difference of opinion as to the serious import 
of the acts and practice herein stated, or the 
results demonstrated by the accompanying evi- 
dence." 

It is proper to add that all the evidence show- 
ing mismanagement and fraud, which constitutes 
two-thirds of the report, was left out of the 



REPORT OF J. A. GTJNX. 197 

Journal of the General Conference to which the 
report was presented. As an act of simple justice 
to say the least, should not the next General 
Conference order the publication of the entire 
report in its Journal? If this is done it will 
more than confirm every charge that I ever made 
against the management of the Book Concern 
as found in books of account. 

MR. GUNN'S REPORT. 

Rev. T. Carlton, D. D., Agent, etc.: 

Sir.— Your letter of April 4, 1871, named two other gentle- 
men with myself as a Committee " to examine the accounts 
and business methods of the Methodist Book Concern." As, 
however, I learned from yourself that these gentlemen were 
not expected, and from themselves, that they did not intend, 
to personally participate in the examination, I declined to 
act as a member of such Committee, and subsequently, on 
April 20th, concluded an agreement with you to individually 
make the proposed investigation. I entered immediately 
upon an examination of the accounts which cover the 
period from January 1, 1860, to November 30, 1871, be- 
lieving that a minute investigation of these accounts, to- 
gether with the vouchers and records pertaining thereto, 
would yield conclusive evidence as to the truth or falsity 
of the charges of " incompetent book-keeping " arid " fraud " 
in the administration of the affairs of the Concern. 

The plan thus entered upon was pursued until the 1st 
of January last, when, in accordance with your expressed 
wish, I suspended the consecutive examination, and gave 
my time and attention to the specific matters cited by 
Dr. Lanahan in his presentment to the Book Committee,* 
and in the consideration of these I have since that date 
been employed; of the results of my examination thus far 
I beg leave to make the following 

*My " presentment to the Book Committee" was that the accounts 
were chaotic; entries in the books fraudulent; and exhibits to the 
Annual Conferences false. The reader will see how far these charges 
are proven by Dr. Carlton's own accountant. 



198 RErORT OF J. A. GUNN. 



REPORT. 



1. Iii reference to the Book-keeping. 

That, before entering upon an examination of the accounts 
subsequent to January 1st, 1861, I found it necessary to 
consider, although not minutely, those of the preceding 
years; that, when the consecutive work was suspended, it 
had embraced the period from 1861 to 1865 inclusive; and 
that, in considering Dr. i^anahan's allegations, I have had 
occasion to examine carefully much of the work of the 
years from I860 to 1871 inclusive; so that my investiga- 
tion, while minute only as to the five years indicated, has, 
in many important respects, embraced the entire period 
from January. 1852, to November 30, 1871. It is proper 
for me to add, however, that when the examination of the 
accounts from 1861 to 1865 was suspended, it was com- 
plete only as to inaccuracies and irregularities apparent 
upon the ledger— not as to the vouchers and original 
records. . . . 

No, no, " the vouchers and original records " were 
delicate things to handle, and the bank books 
were not to be handled at all, except by Dr. 
Carlton and the Cashier, his brother-in-law. I 
failed to get access to them through the civil 
court even, because Judge Barnard turned his 
hearing ear to Mr. E. L. Fancher, and the Shoe 
and Leather Bank, with whom he was " inti- 
mate." Mr. Gunn was not allowed to see them, 
although Dr. Carlton's published card announc- 
ing his appointment, had said "I wish you first 
of all to examine the cash account, to ascertain 
what disposition has been made of the moneys 
received, and whether all disbursements have 
been in the legitimate business of the house 
only." Well, an overruling Providence put in 
my hands material to show much as to "the 
disposition made of the moneys received." 



REPORT OF J. A. GTJNN. 199 

Mr. Gnnn, 1st. notices the "Accuracy of the 
accounts;" 2d. "The System;" 3d. "The Appli- 
cation of the System;" 4th. "The practice." Of 
the latter he says: 

1. The record of details is obscure and meagre. 

The subsidiary books afford in most cases very little, and 
in many no information whatever concerning the origin 
and incidental history of important accounts and entries, 
so that it is simply impossible to understand such accounts 
and entries without protracted and elaborate investigation, 
which frequently would need to be supplemented by infor- 
mation from one personally familiar with such details. It 
is certainly true that, in case of the absence of both the 
book-keeper and his assistant, it would not be possible for 
one not otherwise advised to gather from the books such 
knowledge of the accounts before him as would render 
him competent to make a reliable statement of the real 
condition of the Concern — not because of peculiarities of 
the business, but only because he would find no record of 
facts which would elucidate the entries upon the ledger. . . . 

2. Frequent alterations and changes have rendered the 
books untrustworthy and unintelligible, because there is 
no explanation of such alterations. 

3. The correctness of the books has been tested by trial 
balances only once a year; error then disclosed has been 
allowed to remain without discovery, and consequently 
the books have not balanced in nearly twenty years. 

4. There is a singular lack of uniformity in the manner 
of keeping some of the accounts, changes being made so 
frequently, and without explanation or notice upon the 
books, that the account is rendered unintelligible. 

5. Many entries are made in phraseology not known to 
double entry, which either obscures or fails to make appar- 
ent i lie transaction recorded. 

<;. Accounts have been closed to " Front and Loss" with- 
out proper adjustment, and without intelligible explanation. 



Absolute observance of the cardinal principle of double 
entry— equal debit and credit for every transaction— is essen- 



200 REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 

tial to the integrity of the record. This can be assured 
only by the test of the trial balance; and if error then 
disclosed is allowed to remain without discovery, the trust- 
worthiness of the record is destroyed; for, although the 
error disclosed be apparently small, there is no certainty 
that it is not large. 

As evidence that amounts have been carried to profit and 
loss without proper adjustment and without intelligible ex- 
planation, I refer you to the Depository accounts, by which 
it appears that in 186G there was placed to the debit of 
profit and loss upon only an estimate of probable error, 
not after the amount of error had been definitely ascer- 
tained, the sum of $76,528.31, the only explanation being 
"for errors in Depository sales"; and that in nearly every 
successive year these accounts have been closed " by profit 
and loss " for differences betw T een the books of the Agents 
and those of the Concern, not after, but without adjust- 
ment, and without such explanation on the books as would 
enable one not acquainted with the facts to see the pro- 
priety of the entry. 

There were no such "errors in depository 
sales." The "errors" were the result of what 
Mr. Gunn calls the " manipulations " and " gerry- 
mandering" of the accounts in connection with 
the long continued frauds. But notwithstand- 
ing the above amount " for correction of errors " 
was charged off as a loss in 1866, Mr. Gunn 
shows that in 1867, $54,372.11 was also charged 
off as " a loss for correction of errors." Of it he 
says: 

In reference to the process by which this amount was 
suppressed, see Report, p. 17. 

There is no explanation of this remarkable transaction 
upon any of the books of the Concern; but the following 
was given in writing on December 27, 1871, by the book- 
keeper, Mr. E. Grant, viz.: 

" It was supposed that the manner in which the sum of 



REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 201 

$23,162.89 had been handled had improperly increased the 
Stock Account by twice that amount. Supposed errors were 
also found in the Depository Accounts aggregating $8,046.33. 

" To correct these errors, stock was debited $54,372.11, 
and a similar amount deducted from the Inventories, to pre- 
vent confusion in the Profit and Loss Account." 

To the question, " What errors in the Depository Accounts 
are referred to?" Mr. Grant replied, verbally, "I made no 
record — cannot now remember; and you will have to take 
my word that it is all right." 

Is it not singular that Mr. Grant's memory 
failed hini upon the one vital point — "what 
errors"? That was the hinge upon which the 
whole matter turned. It is unfortunate that he 
"made no record"! Well, his "word" that it 
was all right was something, especially as for 
that and many like words, and other peculiar 
services, his salary had just before been secretly 
raised from f 2,000 to $4,000. Mr. Gunn, as will 
be seen, again refers to this matter of $54,372.11 
when dealing with Mr. Kilbreth's report- 
Mr. Gunn further says: 

I have seen a copy of the " Report " which has been 
prepared for you to submit to the approaching General 
Conference, and to some matters therein it seems proper 
for me to direct your attention. 

I. On page 3 there is a statement of " Sales and profits 
for the four years ending November 30, 1871." The profits 
stated are not profits on sales only, but profits on the whole 
business of the Concern in all its departments; and of these 
only the net profit, i. e., the amount which remained after 
the payment of all losses and expenses. 

1. These net profits on the whole business are not given 
as 11 icy appear on the ledger. 



202 11EPOKT OF J. A. GLXN. 

Report. Ledger. Difference. 

More. Less. 

1868. $83,009.03 $ 81,320.89 $1,682.14 

1869. 60,954.17 193,223.96 $132,269.79 
INK). 68,081.05 82,683.41 14,602.36 
1871. 63,095.92 104,145.77 41,049.85 



$275,140.17 Net p'fit, $461,380.03 $187,922.00 

1,682.14 
Deduct amt. from " Miss. 



Society" of M. E. $186,239.86 

Church South 35,215.02 35,215.02 



" Net earnings " $426,165.01 Difference, $151,024.84 

After thoroughly analyzing the report, Mr. 
(riiun says, "Difference between the report and 
the ledger $96,857.70." When that report was 
read to the General Conference of 1872, at Brook- 
lyn, signed "Carlton and Lanahan, Agents," I 
arose in my place as a member of the body and 
stated that it was fraudulently false, and re- 
quested that my name be taken from it. My 
statement produced much bad feeliug toward 
me, and one member openly denounced me as " a 
devil," and was so reported in the New York 
papers. When called to order, he replied, " it is 
always appropriate to/ quote scripture," thus in- 
dicating the words of the Lord Jesus in reference 
to Judas Iscariot — " One of you is a devil." I 
gave no attention to the denunciation, but per- 
sisted in the demand, Avhich was finally granted 
by a resolution, but when the report appeared 
in the General Conference Journal, it was signed 
" Carlton and Lanahan, Agents," and so it stands 



REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 203 

now, and will stand. Thus I am made respon- 
sible for the false report. 

Mr. Gunn next gives attention to Kilbreth's 
report. 

The reader will please observe how! frequently 
the |54,372.11 turns up in this part of Mr. Gunn's 
reference to Mr. Kilbreth's report. He says: 

In Mr. Kilbreth's Report to the Book Committee there 
are also some matters to which it is proper for me to advert. 

" I have personally examined the methods of book-keep- 
ing- in use in the Book Concern, and the condition of its 
business as therein set forth. My conclusion is that the 
business is not in a confused or chaotic, but in a decidedly 
understandable shape, and that it is not difficult to learn 
the true state of affairs from the books." Page 44. 

As I have, in my Report, expressed conclusions diametric- 
ally opposite to those stated in the above extract, it is 
proper for me to say that Mr. Kilbreth, surely, can not 
intend it to be understood that he has " personally ex- 
amined " the accounts in the ledger, which I have had in 
daily and constant use until quite recently. Indeed, that 
gentleman himself informed me that " he did not intend to 
cast up accounts, but only to make a general examination, 
especially of Dr. Lanahan's more serious charges in refer- 
ence to the bindery and printing-office." 

It will be obvious that the extreme diversity of our con- 
clusions arises from the fact that those expressed by Mr. 
Kilbreth were reached without personal examination of the 
accounts upon the ledger, while those stated in my Report 
embody the results of a very careful "personal examina- 
tion " of those accounts extending through a period of 
nearly a year and a half. . . . 

" Within the last five years (18G7-1871 inclusive) I see no 
good reason to complain of the general system of accounts, 
or the general accuracy and care with which the books 
nave been kept." Page 44. [The time of E. Grant's service 
as book-keeper.] 

That is, indeed, a most extraordinary statement! 

The question is not concerning the system of accounts— 



204 RErORT OF J. A. GUNN. 

all admit that double entry is the proper system— but con- 
cerning the practice, i. e., the accuracy and care with which 
the books have been kept under that system; of this, in the 
period 1867-1871 inclusive, Mr. Kilbreth says " I see no 
good reason to complain." 

Truth compels me, Dr. Carlton, to say precisely the re- 
verse, i. e., I deliberately affirm that " within the last five 
years " there is more to complain of in the " practice " than 
in the five previous years; that there are entries which 
manifest both an utter " want of competency " and a delib- 
erate purpose so to manipulate the accounts that they shall 
convey an incorrect impression concerning the business. 

Mr. Kilbreth's declaration that he did not " see " reason 
to complain of such entries accords with the fact above 
stated, viz., that he did not personally and carefully ex- 
amine the accounts upon the ledger; or else implies that, 
while regarding such entries as perhaps " not very felici- 
tous," he is, nevertheless, not disposed " to complain " 
when the capital stock shown upon the ledger is $54,372.11 
less than, according to the Profit and Loss Account, its 
true amount, and when, for the purpose of making it show 
this amount, the accounts have been so manipulated that 
they give results entirely at variance with the facts. 

In regard to this entry of $54,372.11, in Capital Stock 
Account, on November 30, 1867, Mr. Kilbreth says: "Any 
credit to Profit and Loss made prior to the time for clos- 
ing the books, and having its corresponding debit, as it 
must, to some account other than Stock Account, neces- 
sarily shows in the Profit and Loss Account as a profit. 
But a credit to Profit and Loss, when charged, as in 
this case to Stock Account, is simply the forgiveness of a 
debt due by Profit and Loss, and is entered as a loss, not, 
as Mr. Gouge says, as a profit. It is a charge assumed by 
the proprietor (Stock), and by a reduction of the Capital, 
Profit and Loss is to that extent set free"! The meaning 
of this extraordinary elucidation of the mystery of double 
entry is only this, viz., that entries so made cancel each 
other. 

But, continuing the illustration, if the " proprietor " for- 
gave the debt due by Profit and Loss, then he did not 
receive as much of the profit of his business as he should 
have received by $54,372.11, which is precisely what has 
been proved in the " Analysis," etc. 



REPORT OF J. A. GTJNN. 205 

However, after all this show of kindness, " the proprietor, 
Stock," turns out to have been only another one of many 
shabby fellows who enjoy a reputation for liberality to 
one at the expense of another; for while he forgave his 
debtor, Profit and Loss, he, on the same day, robbed his 
friend Merchandise, to whom he was indebted for nearly 
all he was worth, of precisely the same amount, or, as 
Mr. Kilbreth, in speaking of the inventories, enigmatically 
puts it (p. 45), " The sum of $54,372.11 comes in to make 
havoc of quantities." Why did not Mr. Kilbreth, so that 
the fact might be known, say, in intelligible terms, that 
this amount was subtracted from the inventory of 
" Merchandise on hand," and so made havoc of a quantity 
of the assets of the Concern? 

1. That there is not a record concerning it upon any of 
the books from which it can be ascertained what errors 
are referred to. 

2. The manner in which the entry was made, viz., that, 
the profit on merchandise being $94,535.50, merchandise was 
debited " to profit and loss " for only $40,163.39, and stock 
" to profit and loss " for the remainder, $54,372.11, the effect 
of which was that, when the stock account was credited 
" by profit and loss " for the net profit, $54,372.11 of tms net 
profit was canceled by the previous debit " to profit and 
loss " of the same amount; that then a false date, " 1866," 
was interpolated to give the impression that this debit of 
stock to profit and loss occurred in 1866, while the debit 
of merchandise to profit and loss occurred in 1867 — although 
it is manifest that it could not have been made in 1866 from 
the fact that it is a mere manipulation of the profit and 
loss account among the entries under date of November 30, 
1867; and, finally, that this same amount was subtracted 
from the inventory of merchandise, so that merchandise 
account would show the same amount of profit that stood 
to the credit of profit and loss, viz., $40,163.39, instead of 
the true amount of $94,535.50, and that the "merchandise 
on hand " might be reduced by the same amount that had 
been subtracted from the capital stock. 

(Did not that " inevitable sum come in to make havoc of 
quantities "!) 

3. The statements as to its origin are contradictory, viz., 
that it was " an attempt to correct the closing entries of 
former years," that it was intended thereby to correct 



206 REPORT OF J. A. GUNX. 

" supposed errors in the Depository accounts " and " sup- 
posed errors " of the book-keeper in 1865, and that it was 
to effect a " reduction of values." 

4. The Church seeks an explanation, and is informed that 
the amount placed to the credit of profit and loss " was 
entered as a loss," that " by the forgiveness of stock, profit 
and loss was set free," and that " in 1867 this inevitable 
sum came in to make havoc of quantities." . . . 

I have said that the subsidiary books afford very limited 
information concerning the ledger accounts. It is also true 
that even this limited information has been rendered un- 
trustworthy by frequent additions to, and subtractions from 
original valuations of the assets, without sufficient, and, in 
some instances, without any explanation. 

In this connection I ask your attention to the irregu- 
larities referred to in my former Report. 

I. As to the Capital Stock: 

1st. A comparison of all such alternate changes in the 
valuation of assets found upon the books from January, 
1852, to November 30, 1869, discloses the fact that there 
was thus far, at the latter date, an excess of subtractions, 
or, in other words, an apparent deficit in the capital stock 
account amounting to $180,105.30. 

2d. On that day there was, by advancing the valuation 
of certain assets, added to the balance of capital stock, in 
addition to the profit on the business of the year, the sum 
of $186,114.64. 

3d. Notwithstanding such addition on November 30, 1869, 
there was, on November 30, 1871, an existing deficit in the 
capital stock of $54,372.11— i. e., it was less by this amount 
than, according to the books, it should have been. 

II. As to the Exhibits. 

1st. A careful analysis of all the exhibits from December 
31, 1852, to November 30, 1871, shows that they have not 
correctly informed the Annual Conferences of the condi- 
tion and worth of the Concern. 

2d. That in some instances the amount of assets has been 
understated, in others the amount of liabilities overstated, 
and in still others both the assets and the liabilities have 
been incorrectly stated. 

The evidence of these facts I have endeavored so to 
arrange in tabular form that it may be intelligible, and that 
its significance may be readily apparent. . . . 



REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 207 

As my work is simply professional, it lias seemed to be 
my obvious and imperative duty to report to you whatever 
the books might disclose, and I have therefore directed 
your attention to the irregularities above indicated. Aware 
that my conclusions may be questioned, I submit also the 
evidence upon which they are based. 

There can be no difference of opinion as to the serious 
import of the " acts and practices " herein stated, or the 
results demonstrated by the accompanying evidence. I 
therefore submit them without comment for such explana- 
tion as their importance requires. 

Respectfully, etc., JOHN A. GUNN. 

May 15, 1872. 

The above is followed by the evidence accom- 
panying the report — making two-thirds of the 
report — all of which was left out of the Journal 
of the General Conference. I select only a few 
specimens, which I give below. 

FINANCIAL EXHIBITS TO THE ANNUAL 
CONFERENCE. 

When the Agents of the Book Concern pre- 
sented to the Annual Conferences their annual 
exhibits of the financial condition of the Concern, 
those bodies supposed, of course, that they were 
listening to truthful statements — that is, that 
the exhibits agreed with the assets as shown in 
i lie ledger. But Mr. Gunii says (and he gives 
the evidence in detail): 

In reference to the Exhibits. 

1. That the Exhibits, from December 31, 1854, to Novem- 
ber .30, 1869, inclusive, have not truly informed the Annual 
Conferences of the condition of the Book Concern as shown 
on the Ledger; that, on the contrary, while they appear to 



208 REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 

report the existing Liabilities and the full amount of 
Assets (subject only to a specified " discount for probable 
losses " on " Notes and Accounts " receivable), there has, 
in fact, been uniformly a subtraction from the real worth 
of the concern (in addition to the " discount for probable 
losses "), which has been accomplished in some instances 
by suppressing large amounts of the Assets, in others by 
fictitiously increasing the Liabilities, and yet others by 
both these methods combined (see Exhibits in Appendix, 
especially those from 1866 to 1869). 

He analyzes the exhibits for the above years, 
and shows the amonnts that were " suppressed," 
that is, not reported. I cite from his report the 
following: 

1857. Differ'ce between the Ledger and Exhibits, $50,887.80 

1858. " " " " " 47,057,64 

1859. " " " " " 80,250.85 

1860. " " " " " 7,817.21 

1861. " " " " " 112,437.18 

1862. " " " " " 38,582.50 

1863. " " " " " 25,346.86 

1864. " " " " " 36,013.99 

1865. " " " " " 25,584.29 

1866. " " " " " 54,372.11 

1867. " " " " " 80,736.93 

For the first time in more than twelve years, 
the assets stated on the exhibit were the same 
as those given in the ledger. Of this agreement 
Mr. Gunn says: 

But observe, this exceptional agreement arises from the 
fact that this year the additional subtraction is made on 
the Ledger, but in such way that it does not appear, i. e., 
by showing in the Profit and Loss Account $51,739.48 less 
profit than was actually earned. 

Of the exhibit of 1869, Mr. Gnnn says: 



REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 209 

In the Exhibit of November 30, 1869, issued about three 
mouths after the first public allegation of defective man- 
agement—although there was, for the first time since 1854 
neither under-statement of Assets nor over-statement of 
Liabilities— there was 

(1) An incorrect statement of the Profits of the year. 

It is said " the Profits of the year have been $112,693.65," 
whereas, according to the Ledger, the Gross Profits on 
Mdse. alone were $249,106.62, and the Net Profit on the 
whole business, shown by the Profit and Loss Account, was 
$193,223.96. 

(2) An incorrect statement of the " Increase of Capital." 
It is said " Increase of Capital in- 
cluded in the above Exhibit $82,252,56," 

whereas by the Ledger, the Net 
Profit was, as above $193,223.96 

and there was added for increased 
valuation of Real Estate 113,349.20 

Total Gain, $306,573.16 
Out of which was paid by order 

of General Conference 30,441.09 

And the amount actually added as 

Increase of Capital was $276,132.07 

Difference $193,879.51 

J. A. GUNN, Accountant. 

Mr. Gunn next shows the difference between 
the ledger and the exhibits, as to the net profits 
of the Book Concern, as follows: 





Ledger. 


Exhibit. 


Difference. 


1858 Net Profits, 30,358.04 


35,709.02 


649.02 


1859. 


52,429.76 


28,458.11 


23,971.65 


1860. 




43,491.90 


43,491.90 


1861. 


11,624.05 




11,624.05 


1862. 




40,858.34 


46,858.34 


1863. 


74,528.37 


64,993.26 


9,535.11 


1864. 


71,091.73 


57,849.32 


13,242.41 



10 


REPORT OF J. A. 


GUNN. 








Ledger. 


Exhibit. 


Difference. 


18G5. 


Net Profits, 


30,281.42 


30,281.42 




1866. 


" 


26,735.26 


30,271.99 


3,536.73 


1867. 


" 


81,602.16 


62,552.39 


19,049.77 


1868. 


" 


81,326.89 


83,009.03 


1,682.14 


1869. 


" 


306,573.16 


112,693.65 


193,879.51 


1870. 


" 


82,683.41 


75,382.23 


7,301.18 



It is seen in the above, that in 1860, the ledger 
shows no profit, whilst the exhibit to the Annual 
Conferences reports $43,491.09 profit. In 1861, 
the ledger showed $11,642.05 profit, and the ex- 
hibit reported no profit. In 1862, the ledger 
showed no profit, but the exhibit reported $46,- 
858.34 profit. And that in the above fourteen 
years, only in 1865 is there any agreement be- 
tween the ledger and the exhibits. Why did 
not the ledger and the exhibits agree in all cases? 
Because, large amounts of the profits were sup- 
pressed, and thus the Annual Conferences were 
kept in ignorance. 

From Mr. Gunn's report, I select the following, 
showing the difference between the ledger and 
the exhibits to the Annual Conference — first, as 
to the amount of "cash" in hand; second, as to 
"notes and accounts," and third, as to "liabili- 
ties." It will be seen that in only six out of 
twelve years, the ledger and exhibits agree as to 
cash in hand. But I shall furnish proof that in 
those six cases, neither the ledger, nor the ex- 
hibits truthfully stated the amount of cash, be- 
cause Dr. Carlton kept large amounts of the 
money of the Book Concern in his personal and 
private account. 



REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 211 



Ledger. 

1857-Cash on hand 38,387.19 

Notes and Accounts 223,41315 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 197.354.23 

1858-Cashonhand 41,884.07 

Notes and Accounts 223.774.39 

Liabilities: Notes and Accounts 128,088.82 

1&59 -Cash on hand 39,082.24 

Notes and Accounts 209,840 52 

1860— Cash on hand 20,429 49 

Notes and Accounts 182,888.90 

1861-Cash on hand 38,544.16 

Notes and Accounts 173,321.00 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 56,381.65 

1862— Cash on hand 23,691.96 

Notes and Accounts 165,454.25 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 29,681.88 

1863— Cash on hand 6,940.33 

Notes and Accounts 231,342.88 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 37,199.47 

1864— Cash on hand 17.705 40 

Notes and Accounts 240,919.83 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 104,032 05 

1865-Cash on hand 24,470,85 

Notes and Accounts 299,507.07 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 124,693 41 

1866— Casta on hand 19,503.75 

Notes and Accounts 235,488.55 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 116,634.45 

1867-Cash on hand 41,057.42 

Notes and Accounts 291.837.01 

Liabilities; Notes and Accounts 100,541.37 

1868-Cash on hand 52,529.94 

Notes and Accounts 238,444 64 



1870-Cash on hand 27,207.03 

Notes and Accounts 356,016.03 

These startling discrepancies, I venture to say 
cannot be matched by any business honse in New 
York, or anywhere else. Yet Mr. J. P. Kilbreth, 
who came all the way from Cincinnati to exam- 
ine, and for his " services declined compensation," 
said of these accounts: "My conclusion is that 
the business is not in a confused or chaotic con- 
dition, but in a decidedly understandable shape, 



Exhibit. 


Difl'ereuce. 


16,081.36 
2-'4,066.76 
166,986.14 


22,305.83 

653.61 

30,568.09 


26,884.07 
237,513.17 
110,654.06 


15,000.00 
13,738.78 
17,404.06 


17,000.31 
209,840 52 


22,082.24 


20,429.49 
120,759.27 


62,129.63 


30,140.41 
115,547.34 
47,977.90 


8,403.75 
57,773.66 
8,403.75 


23,691.96 
110,302.84 
29,681.88 


55,151.41 


6,940.33 
154,228.59 
34,899.83 


77,m.29 
2,299.64 


17,705.40 
241.492.42 
105,032.05 


572.59 
1,000 00 


24,470.85 
181,853.85 
111,362.28 


117,653.22 
13,331.13 


19,503.75 
126,460 12 
126,674 93 


109,02*8. 43 
10,04048 


5.323.49 
164,558.01 

19.807.44 


35.733.93 
127,279.00 
80,733.93 


52,529.94 
158,96310 


79,481.54 


19,905 85 
291,593 85 


7,301.18 
64,512.18 



212 REPORT OF J. A. GTJNN. 

and that it is not difficult to learn the true state 
of affairs from the books." 

In further illustration of the reckless and 
dishonest methods of the Book Concern manage- 
ment, I ask attention to the following further 
statement from Dr. Carlton's own accountant, 
Mr. John A. Gunn. 

I select also the following from Mr. Gunn's 
report, showing that in some years as the sales 
diminished the profits increased: 

On sales of merchandise in 18G4 $526,087.98 

There is shown a profit of 49,084.32 

On sales of merchandise in 1865 628,103.95 

There is shown a profit of 62,124.18 

On sales of merchandise in 1866 686,122.26 

There is shown a profit of 104,726.34 

On sales of merchandise in 1867 694,885.58 

There is shown a profit of 40,163.39 

On sales of merchandise in 1868 619,473.27 

There is shown a profit of 176,383.61 

On sales of merchandise in 1869 594,191.25 

There is shown a profit of 249,106.62 

On sales of merchandise in 1870 588,645.82 

There is shown a profit of 134,115.74 

On sales of merchandise in 1871 624,530.08 

There is shown a profit of 136,240.31 

I beg the reader to pause and ponder the fol- 
lowing analysis of the above statement of amount 
of sales and profits. See if it does not suggest 
a basis for my charge of "chaos," as well as 
fraud : 



REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 213 

In 1865, with sales more than in 1864 by $102,015.97, the 
profits were greater by only $13,039.86. 

In 1866, with sales more than in 1865 by only $58,018.31, 
the profits shown were greater by $42,602.16. 

In 1867, with sales more than in 1866 by $8,763.22, the 
profits shown were less by $64,562.95. 

In 1868, with sales less than in 1867 by $75,412.31, the 
profits were more by $136,220.22. 

In 1869, with sales less than in 1868 by $25,282.02, the 
profits shown were greater by $72,723.01. 

In 1870, with sales less than in 1869 by only $5,545.43, the 
profits shown were less by $114,990.88. 

In 1871, with sales more than in 1870 by $35,884.26, the 
profits shown were greater by only $2,124.57. 

In the three years that the sales were less, the profits 
were wonderfully increased! 

Mr. Gunn further says: 

There had been so constantly, directly and indirectly, 
alternate additions to, and subtractions from its Capital 
Stork Account, that it was not possible at any time to learn 
from that account what the Methodist Book Concern was 
really worth; and on November 30, 1869, there was added 
to its apparent Capital Stock, in addition to regular profit 
on the business, the sum of $1S6,105.30. 

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONS TO AND SUBTRACTIONS 
FROM THE CAPITAL STOCK ACCOUNT OF THE 
METHODIST BOOK CONCERN SINCE JANUARY 
1, 1852, AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE APPAR- 
ENTLY EXISTING DEFICIT ON NOVEMBER 30, 
ISO!). 

[Here follows a tabulation of subtractions 

from and additions to the assets from 1854 to 

1869, showing an excess of subtractions of 
|18G,105.30.] 



214 REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 

To return the amount ($186,105.30) of these latter sub- 
tractions to the Capital Stock Account, the value of real 
estate in 

Mulberry and Mott Streets was increased $80,000.00 

Pittsburgh was increased 5,349.20 

San Francisco was increased 28,000.00 

Added to Merchandise Inventory 61,365.44 

Added to Printing Presses* 11,400.00 

$186,114.64 

The increase Avas too much by $9.34, and it appears by 
the Ledger that at the close of the next year the Profit 
and Loss Account was debited, and Real Estate in Pitts- 
burgh credited $9.38 without any explanation whatever, but 
evidently to cancel excess of increase, thus making the real 

increase, November 30, 1869 $186,105.26 

a difference of 04 

$186,105.22 

The difference of 4 cents may reasonably be attributed to 
oversight in computing deficit. 

Of the above increase of the assets, Mr. Gunn 
says "Observe the manner in which this in- 
crease was made. The only record concerning 
it is found on page 83 of the ' Balance Book/ 
upon which are recorded copies of all trial bal- 
ances, balance sheets, etc., to which no one would 
think of looking for an original entry. 

" It must be obvious in view of all the foregoing 
facts, that the Capital Stock Account has been 
so complicated by the manipulations of succes- 
sive years — especially since 1865 — that it is true 
balance cannot possibly be determined until the 

*Some of those printing presses had been in use many years; did 
that increase their value ? The $11,000 increase was taken off the next 
year. 



REPORT OF J. A. GTJNN. 215 

investigation is completed by a thorough exami- 
nation of all the records of the business in its 
various departments, and a complete valuation 
and scrutiny of the assets and liabilities of the 
Concern. 

" The propriety of alternately reducing and ad- 
vancing by the amount of estimated or antici- 
pated profit, the valuation of the real estate, 
whereby the books may be made to show any 
required amount of assets, is certainly question- 
able; and it is difficult to understand why the 
sum of $69,384.23, subtracted from the value of 
'merchandise on hand/ January 1, 1862, should 
have been returned to the Capital Stock Novem- 
ber 30, 1869; for if there was in 1862 undervalu- 
ation, its effect was only to increase the profit 
when the merchandise was sold; and if the mer- 
chandise thus reduced had remained on hand 
until November, 1869, then the errors of under- 
valuation in succeeding years, which were the 
alleged justification of farther reductions, 
amounted to considerably more than that sum." 

Mr. Gunn further says, " It is not to be under- 
stood that the Capital Stock Account having 
been credited with |186,105.30, now shows the 
true balance, but only that certain sums previ- 
ously subtracted, and amounting in the aggre- 
gate to $186,105.30, were on November 30, 1869, 
added to the Capital Stock Account; for the 
books show that, notwithstanding that addition, 
there was on November 30, 1869, a discrepancy 
of $54,372.11." 



216 REPORT OF J. A. GUNN. 

This " discrepancy " added to the above ficti- 
tious addition of $186,105.30, shows that when 
the frauds were discovered in 1869, there was a 
deficit in the books of $240,477.41. 

Was not the above addition of f 186,105.30 an 
easy way to make up deficits and correct " dis- 
crepancies" when the charge of fraud was im- 
pending? It is one of the many reasons why 
Dr. Carlton and his Book Committee were op- 
posed to an examination of the books, except 
by accountants chosen by himself, and who were 
to. report to himself. Thanks to the Providence 
that ordered the selection of Mr. John A. Gunn, 
the Presbyterian, who could neither be used nor 
bribed. Yes, and thanks] to the same overruling 
Providence that caused Mr. Gunn to seek a pri- 
vate interview with Bishops Janes and Simpson, 
who advised him not to allow his report to be 
smothered, which led him to deliver it to Dr. Carl- 
ton in a printed " form," which prevented it go- 
ing in manuscript into the hands of Mr. J. Van 
Meek, whoi was so anxious to serve Dr. Carlton, 
that he wanted to write a report on the books 
which he had not examined. 



REPORT OF E. H. GOUGE. 

The few selections I have given from the 
report of Dr. Carlton's accountant so fully estab- 
lish my charges as to the chaotic and fraudulent 
condition of the books of account, that I shall 
give only a part of the report of my accountant. 
When he had finished his report, another ac- 
countant examined it and tested its correctness. 
This explains Mr. AppePs note appended to the 
report. 

REPORT OF E. H. GOUGE. 

New York, January 9, 1871. 
Rev. JOHN LANAHAN. 

Sir.— Having been employed by you to make an examina- 
tion of the books of account of the Methodist Book Concern, 
I beg leave respectfully to submit the following report: 

The books are not kept in that clear and intelligible 
manner that should characterize books relating to any 
business, but rather in a very bungling and inaccurate 
manner, neither correct in theory or fact. 

It is impossible to tell what the original entries were in 
manj 7 cases, on account of the erasures that have been 
made; and in other instances alterations have been made 
without any explanation whatever, so that it is impossible 
to tell whether the entries are correct or not. 

Information that is absolutely necessary to the proper 
transaction and dispatch of business furnished by some of 
the books is very meager and unsatisfactory; as, for in- 
stances, the Bills Receivable Book in the majority of cases 
docs not contain a record of whoiv notes due the Concern are 
payable, or how long they have to run; and when they are 
paid, the simple remark " Paid " is made on the margin, 

217 



218 REPORT OF E. H. GOUGE. 

without any reference to dates. The same is true of the 
Bills Payable Book; the place where and the time when 
notes due by the Concern are payable is not recorded. 

In my experience as an accountant for more than twenty- 
five years I have never seen or known a ledger to be used 
as a book of original entries, which I find to be the case 
in this examination; as, for instance, whatever is standing 
to the debit or credit of Profit and Loss at the end of the 
year is transferred bodily from one account to the other, 
and so with Merchandise, Expense Account, Bindery, 
Printing Office, and many other accounts, instead of being 
properly journalized. 

The only entries that are made in the Journal are the 
sales, and in all other cases the cash books are used as 
journals, and a great variety of entries, other than of 
cash, are made there indiscriminately and improperly with 
the cash. 

The accounts with the Bindery do not exhibit a correct 
statement of its profits, or what it owes the Concern. I 
understand the account to be kept by charging it (the 
Bindery) with the amount of stock on hand, with the 
materials purchased and amount expended in wages; 
and at the end of the year it is credited with the value 
of work turned out and the inventory of stock on hand. 
The value of the work turned out is estimated by taking 
the actual cost of the materials and wages and adding 
25 per cent. Upon this basis there cannot be such a thing 
as a loss in the Bindery. The Concern must always show 
a profit; and yet in the year 1864 there appears to have 
been a loss in the Bindery of $4,254.50. 

The inventory of the Bindery of November 30, 1864, is 
entered as $161,641.08, and upon that basis a profit is 
shown of $18,908.39. In 1865 it is claimed that this inven- 
tory should have been $138,^78.19. Allowing that the error 
of $23,162.89 did actually exist, a correct statement of the 
Bindery account on November 30, 1864, would show a loss 
of $4,254.50. It is difficult to see in what manner any error 
in the amount on the inventory could have arisen, since the 
inventory itself is the original record from which the entry 
in the Ledger is made. This shows the amount to be 
$138,478.19, and the entry of $161,641.08 on the Ledger is 
a false entry. . . . 



REPORT OF E. H. GOUGE. 219 

In Merchandise account, December 31, 1862, page 239, 
Ledger O, a difference of $69,384.23 in the inventory Janu- 
ary 1, 1862, is credited. There is no record to show how 
the difference arose or what it consisted of, the Ledger 
being used as a book of original entries. 

Periodical account, page 201, Ledger O, December 31, 
1861, is credited with "debts due," $20,964.00; $10,000 of 
this amount is brought forward from the beginning of the 
year, and the remainder, $10,964.00, has been interlined 
after the account was balanced. The interlineation is 
proved by the footings. 

The footings, as they stand now, are $101,965.01. The 
correct footings are $112,929.01. 

The effect of this entry is to show a seeming increase 
of the amount of profits on periodicals of $20,964. 

On page 6, Ledger O, Brown Brothers & Co., of this city, 
are charged with " cash on deposit," during the year 1861, 
amounting to $20,900.00, and on December 31, 1862, credited 
by cash, $292.14, and the balance, $20,607.86, is carried 
to profit and loss, thus making them appear as indebted 
to the Concern to the amount of $20,607.86, and unable to 
pay it. 

The inventories of merchandise on hand appear on the 
inventory books as follows: 

Dec. 31, 1862 $110,932.06 

Dec. 31, 1863 128,390.22 

Nov. 30, 1864 136,039.88 

Nov. 30, 1865 135,644.62 

Nov. 30, 1867 157,969.02 

On the ledger they are entered as follows: 

Jan. 1, 1863 $112,460.36 

Jan. 1, 1864 130,390.22 

Nov. 30, 1864 138,238.40 

Nov. 30, 1865 137,644.62 

Nov. 30, 1867 105,596.11 

The inventory of merchandise on hand for 1868 on the 
inventory book is $161,403.99, and by a deduction of 15 
per cent, it is reduced to $130,738.04, and on the ledger it 
is entered $140,895.52. 



220 REPORT OF E. H. GOUGE. 

On the debit side of the capital stock account, Ledger O, 
page 261, I find the following entry: "To P. & L. for cor. 
of errors, $54,372.11 "; and this amount is credited to profit 
and loss account, page 115, Ledger O; or, in other words, 
entered as a profit. If an error really did occur in the in- 
ventory the net assets on November 30, 1867, should be 
$618,479.41, instead of $672,851.52; and on November 30, 
1869, $948,057.94, instead of $1,002,430.05, as appears on the 
ledger. 

On the trial balance, taken November 30, 1869, the follow- 
ing items appear: 

" Additions to Real Estate." 

Mulberry and Mott Streets $80,000.00 

Pittsburgh 5,349.20 

San Francisco 28,000.00 

Added to Mdse. Inventory 61,365.44 

Added to Printing, old Printing Presses 11,400.00 

Total $186,114.64 

In regard to the $11,400, the words used in the inventory 
book are: " Increased value of 'presses,' " (and not "added 
to printing department,") $11,400; which total is carried to 
the credit of profit and loss account, made to increase the 
profits of the year, and added to the assets of the Concern. 
The several accounts are debited with the increased values, 
as above. The trial balance book is made the book of 
original entries in this case, and the ledger entries are 
posted from this book. . . . 

It appears by the books, from 1861 to 1868, inclusive, that 
the Concern has lost by interest account the sum of $8,- 
704.99, which seems quite extraordinary, judging from the 
large cash balance on hand at the end of each month. 

On page 108, Ledger " P," Elihu Grant's account, I find 
these entries: 

Nov. 30, 1870. By additional salary, 1869 $1,000.00 

Nov. 30, 1870. By salary to date 3,000.00 

$4,000.00* 

* About the same time Mr. Grant had borrowed from the Senior 
Agent $1100. 



REPORT OF E. H. GOUGE. 221 

Thus having "been paid four thousand dollars for one 
year's services. 

Very respectfully yours, E. H. GOUGE, 

Accountant. 

I certify that I have examined the books of the Methodist 
Book Concern and the above report, and I find the report 
correct. CHAS. A. APPEL, 

Accountant. 

Of the increase of Elihu Grant's salary, I knew 
nothing till I was informed by my account- 
ant. I was informed by the assistant book-keep- 
er that at the same time Dr. Carlton had added 
a |1,000 to the salary of his nephew, the clerk 
in charge of the store; and |500 to the salary 
of the cashier, his brother-in-law; and |500 to 
the salary of the young man who was called 
assistant cashier, but was only a post office run- 
ner. That young man was brought to the Con- 
cern by Dr. Carlton in the third year of my 
Agency without a word of consultation with me. 
I knew not where he came from. Before he had 
been there long I learned that he had gotten 
to speculating. Sometime after my connection 
with the house had ended, the New York papers 
announced that he was under arrest for stealing 
|15,000 of the Bonds of the Book Concern, and 
$4,000 in money. The easy way in which the 
frauds I had unearthed were disposed of, may 
have emboldened him in the theft. If I had been 
connected with the Concern at the time, I might, 
perhaps, have been charged with giving publicity 
to the theft, and " inspiring the criticisms of the 
press." What was done with the unfortunate 
young man, I never inquired. I withhold his name. 



SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNT- 
ANT, MADE SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE 
I BECAME ONE OF THE AGENTS. 

As far back as 1860, there were misgivings 
as to the management of the Book Concern, the 
Agents, in their report to the General Confer- 
ence, referring to the matter thns: "In the 
course of our business, we have met with com- 
plaints in the papers which have done injustice 
to the Church and its officers in the Book Con- 
cern. For example, it has been represented 
that the Concern has been badly managed. It 
has been compared with certain private pub- 
lishing houses, and it has been said that the 
sales and profits have been small for capital 
invested, etc., etc." 

After the presentation of the report from 
which the above is quoted, the General Confer- 
ence adopted the following, in regard to both 
the Houses, East and West: 

Resolved, That the Agents and Book Committee be, and 
hereby are, instructed to have the accounts of the Concerns 
in their care examined and audited annually by a com- 
petent accountant, and the report of such examination laid 
before the Committee at their annual session. 

This, however, was never done for a single 
year, at least in the New York House. It is 
222 



SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 223 

certainly singular that the Agents were to be 
a part of a committee to " examine and audit " 
their own accounts. I should haye asked to be 
excused from having anything to do with such 
matters except as questioned by the Committee. 
I judge it was an oversight. 

Under the above resolution the General Com- 
mittee appointed two of its members ; one a resi- 
dent of New Jersey and the other of New York, 
to act with the Agents in having the accounts 
examined and audited. An accountant was em- 
ployed, who, August 15th, 1862, made the fol- 
lowing report, not, however, to the Sub-commit- 
tee, nor to the General Committee, but to the 
Agents, which shows that they, or one of them, 
controlled the whole matter: 

Messrs. Carlton and Porter: 

Gentlemen.— Some weeks ago I called at the Book-room, 
at your request, to examine into the feasibility of examin- 
ing and auditing the accounts of the Methodist Book Con- 
cern. After a hasty glance at the number and character of 
the accounts, I expressed the opinion that an examination 
such as was proposed would be of no practical value, un- 
less it was made thorough by tracing every entry back to 
its source, which would be so laborious that it would be 
impossible to make the examination in the time that could 
be devoted to the work.* A subsequent critical investiga- 
tion of the nature of the accounts, and of the manner in 
which they are kept, has more than confirmed me in the 
opinion then expressed. It is, of course, impossible to say 
just how much time would be needed to make the exami- 
nation, but I do not hesitate to say that, if the work were 

* I suppose the accountant meant " the time " he could devote to the 
work as he was at that time, and had been for several years, per- 
manently employed as bookkeeper in a large commercial house in 
New York. An accountant could easily have been gotten whose 
entire time was devoted to just such work. 



224 SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 

performed by an accountant sufficiently master of his busi- 
ness to do it well, it would be a labor of months to examine 
and audit the accounts of the Concern for a single year. 

We subsequently held some conversation about the 
various methods of keeping accounts, and their adaptation 
to the nature and peculiarities of the business to be trans- 
acted; and before leaving, I was requested by you to ex- 
amine into the method or system of accounts kept by the 
Concern, and to make a report thereon, including in it sug- 
gestions as to changes in the system that I might think 
could be advantageously made. 

I have accordingly examined somewhat closely into the 
nature of the business transacted, and the manner in which 
the accounts are kept, and, as the result, beg leave to 
make the following report. 

The books of the Concern appear to contain a full record 
of the business in all its departments. As far as my obser- 
vation extended, I discovered no omission in recording 
every fact that was necessary to a perfect understanding 
of the business, or to a full statement of its results. In 
the manner of arranging the accounts, however, they are 
faulty. An effort seems to have been made to have the 
books kept systematically, but the system adopted is not 
sufficiently comprehensive, and does not include all the 
accounts. Some of them are kept methodically and cor- 
rectly, others amount to little more than disconnected 
memoranda; the consequence of which is that the books fail 
to show the exact results of the business. 

This may seem strange, but we have only to analyze one 
or two of the leading accounts to make it clear. 

Take, for example, the Merchandise account. The main 
thing to be learned from this account is the gross profit 
made by the manufacture and sale of books during the 
year. To do this, it is requisite that the debit side of the 
account should show the entire cost of the goods included 
under the head of Merchandise, and the credit side the 
entire proceeds realized from their sale. Having these two 
items, the total cost and the amount of sales, we have but 
to add to the debit side of the account the amount of stock 
on hand at the beginning of the year, and to the credit side 
the amount on hand at the end of the year, and the balance 
then standing at the credit of the account will be the 
profit made on the year's sales. 



SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 225 

Let us see how far the books, as now kept, succeed in 
giving us these facts. One great element of cost in making 
books consists of wages paid to printers, book-binders, etc., 
and to authors for copyrights, and all disbursements for 
these objects should in some way be debited to the Mer- 
chandise account. The practice of your accountant is, how- 
ever, to charge these disbursements to other accounts, and 
the consequence is, the Merchandise account shows at the 
end of the year an amount of profit fictitious to an extent 
just equal to the amounts paid for the above objects. 

Again: the item of wages, alluded to above, instead of 
going into its proper channel, finds its way into an account 
called " Salaries and Wages." This account is, or should 
be, purely an expense account, and is properly chargeable 
with no items except such as are a necessary expense in 
the geDeral management of the business: by charging to 
it, therefore, items that really constitute a part of the cost 
of the goods in which you deal, you show an amount of 
expense that is to a large extent fictitious. 

The accounts with the different periodicals would natur- 
ally be considered of great importance, but in these the 
books are deficient to a much greater extent than in the 
accounts to which allusion has already been made. The 
books should show the cost, receipt, and profits of each 
one of the periodicals published, but, in reality, they give 
us no information whatever on either of these points. The 
cost of the paper on which the periodicals are printed is 
charged to the Merchandise account, and the wages paid 
to printers, etc., are charged to the account of " Salaries 
and Wages," while the accounts with the subscribers are 
kept in books entirely disconnected from the set which 
should represent the whole business, and in such a way as 
to give us no information as to the amount of subscriptions 
received for any one of the periodicals, or, indeed, for all 
of them combined. 

The accounts with the different Depositories also fail to 
give us the information they should as to the results of the 
business done by them. The amount of sales, profits, and 
expenses of each Depository, instead of appearing dis- 
tinctly and by themselves, are merged into the general 
accounts of these items, which include the business done 
at the Book-room as well as at the different agencies. 



226 SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 

The above instances are probably sufficient to indicate the 
principal deficiencies of the method of keeping the accounts 
now in use, viz., that they are not so arranged as, in the 
ordinary routine of the business, to gather the various 
aggregates of the business under proper heads, so as to 
show easily, yet clearly, the exact results of the business. 

As I have before remarked, every part of the business 
appears to be fully recorded in the books, and it is possible, 
by analyzing the accounts, taking an item here and another 
there, to make at the end of the year a statement of the 
results of the business, but the necessity for making this 
analysis proves the incompleteness of the system used. 
If the system be a good one, and well adapted to the nature 
of the business, every item of disbursement and receipt, 
whether of expense or of profit, will be classified and 
appear under its proper head, and at the end of the year 
the profit and loss account will show at its debit the total 
amount of losses and expenses, and at its credit the profits 
made, together with the sources from which they are 
derived. 

There is nothing in the nature of the business of the 
Book-room that would render it at all difficult to arrange 
the books so as to show these results, and I will now 
attempt to suggest a plan of accounts that will meet the 
requirements of the business in this respect. 

(Then follows the plan suggesting the manner of keeping 
accounts with the several depositories, printing-office, bind- 
ery, periodicals, etc.) 

It will be observed that the report is all about 
the " method or system " of keeping* the accounts. 
After quoting the report, Mr. Gium, with his 
usual moderation, says: 

I need not add a word concerning the book-keeping prior 
to the date of that Report, except only to say that, as it 
was not that gentleman's purpose to audit the accounts, 
but only to examine the system of book-keeping employed, 
there were some features of the books at that time which 
probably did not come under his observation, and which 
would undoubtedly have modified in some measure his 



SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 227 

opinion concerning the fullness of the records, and the 
possibility of making therefrom at the end of the year 
a correct statement of the results of the business. 

Tlie following is from the report of the Book 
Committee that had been ordered to have the 
accounts examined and audited. Journal, 1864, 
page 339: 

In accordance with instructions given by the last General 
Conference to the Book Agents and Book Committee " to 
have the accounts of the Book Concern audited"; one of 
the most competent accountants in New York was em- 
ployed, to whose inspection (accompanied by one of our 
number) said accounts in all departments of the " Concern " 
were submitted without reserve; and who, after a thorough 
investigation, made an able and elaborate report, in which 
he remarks: " An examination such as is proposed will be 
of no practical value unless it is made thorough by tracing 
every entry back to its source." "It is of course impossible 
to say just how much time would be needed to make the 
examination; but I do not hesitate to say that if the work 
were performed by an accountant sufficiently master of his 
business to do it well, it would be a labor of months to 
examine and audit the books of the Concern for a single 
year."* " The books of the Concern appear to contain a full 
record of the business in all its departments. As far as 
my observation extended, I discovered no omission in re- 
cording every fact that was necessary to a perfect under- 
standing of the business, or to a full statement of its 
results." These opinions, reached after careful deliberation, 
harmonizing with the views of the Agents and the Com- 
mittee, they deemed it inexpedient and needless to push 
the investigation further. 

The remarkable fact, must be noticed, that 
instead of giving the whole report of the account- 
ant, the above gives only two and a half senten- 
ces from it, and that they are so picked out as 

* Why were the above quoted words italicised I They were not so in 
the report. 



22S SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 

to separate them from their connection. What 
does that suggest? Does not the statement that 
" It would he a labor of months to examine and 
audit the accounts of a single year," coupled with 
the additional statements that "Some of the 
accounts are little more than disconnected me- 
moranda," and that " it is possible, by taking an 
item here and another there to make out at the 
end of the year a statement of the results of the 
business," show the absolute jumble of the ac- 
counts? Could a more chaotic system of book- 
keeping be imagined? The accountant evidently 
gave but little time in examining the " system," 
but Mr. Gunn, as we have seen, who spent fifteen 
months in examining both the system and the 
correctness of the accounts for more than twelve 
years, affirms the " impossibility of making there- 
from at the end of the year a correct statement 
of the results of the business." 

Although the accountant, in effect, admits 
that his examination was not of a kind to be of 
any practical value, he nevertheless says, "The 
books of the Concern appear to contain a full 
record of the business in all departments." I 
have sometimes inquired whether the accountant 
put that statement and the like one given above 
in his report, or whether it was interpolated, 
it is so out of harmony with his other state- 
ments about the "disconnected memoranda," 
and the necessity of "taking an item here and 
another there" to ascertain the yearly results 
of the business. But the Agents and Sub- 



SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 229 

committee were so fully satisfied "that they 
deemed it inexpedient to push the investiga- 
tion further." If the report had been made to 
the General Conference at any other time than 
1864, when the nation was convulsed with war, 
and when unusual attention was given to the 
same, I think that body would have "pushed" 
both Agents and Committee aside and appointed 
persons who would have had the accounts " ex- 
amined and audited" by "tracing every entry 
back to its source." 

The famous Book Committee of 1868 to 1872, 
that gave so much attention to me, in their re- 
port to the General Conference, speak thus of 
the above report: 

During the year 1862, in pursuance of an order from the 
General Conference, the books and business methods of the 
Concern were subjected to an unusually scrutinizing ex- 
amination by a competent accountant, under the direction 
of the Book Committee. ... In their report to the General 
Conference of 1864, they make special mention of this 
examination and precede it with the following emphatic 
endorsement: "Careful investigation has satisfied us that 
the Agents in charge of the Concern are interested, capa- 
ble, and faithful men. Each successive year the convic- 
tion has strengthened that they are the right men in the 
right place." (General Conference Journal, 1872. Page 
590.) i 

Is it not fair to infer that if the result of the 
"unusually scrutinizing examination" had suit- 
ed their policy, they would have given the whole 
report instead of the two nattering sentences 
complimentary to the Agents? I am in charity 
disposed to believe they never saw the report. 



230 SUPPRESSED REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT. 

Their practice was to believe and do whatever 
the Senior Agent told them, and disbelieve what- 
ever I laid before them, however corroborated by 
incontrovertible evidence, and thus they became 
inextricably involved, and were as truly on trial 
as the management of the Book Concern, includ- 
ing both Goodenough and Hoffman. Sad spec- 
tacle! Painful to record. But the truth must 
be told to silence men who persist in misleading 
the Church. 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

In presenting further examples of the financial 
methods, I will show the well nigh incredible 
character of those methods. I haye already 
given from Mr. Gimn's report to Dr. Carlton, the 
following, and here repeat it to connect it with 
explanatory facts: 

As evidence that amounts have been carried to profit and 
loss without proper adjustment and without intelligible 
explanation, I refer you to the Depository accounts, by 
which it appears that in 1S66 there was placed to the 
debit of profit and loss upon only an estimate of probable 
error, not after the amount of error had been definitely 
ascertained, the sum of $76,528.31, the only explanation 
being "for errors in Depository sales"; and that in nearly 
every successive year these accounts have been closed " by 
profit and loss " for differences between the books of the 
Agents and those of the Concern, not after, but without 
adjustment, and without such explanation on the books as 
would enable one not acquainted with the facts to see the 
propriety of the entry. 

The only entry in the books having any relation to above 
$76,528.31, is in cash book " Z," folio 26, November 30, 1866, 
as follows: 

"Boston Depository, amt. charged to I\ & L. . . .$45,S12.05 

Buffalo " " " " 22,419.69 

Pittsburgh " " " " S,296.57 



$76,528.31 
Error in reporting monthly sales during the years 1863, 
1864, 1865 and 1866. These amounts charged to Profit and 
Loss by order of Agents." 

231 



232 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

What kind of financial methods must they have 
been to allow such " errors " to run through four 
successive years? There were no such errors in 
the Boston Depository ; the agent was a business 
man of marked exactness, as the following letter 
from him to Messrs. Carlton and Porter shows : 

Boston, Feb. 1, 1867. 
Messrs. Carlton & Porter: 

Dear Brethren.— Herewith I send statement of stock 
account for four years, in comparison with your statement 
sent to me: 

1863, December 31.— Merchandise to date, I allow more 
$376.29. 

Conference collections, $1,011.03, is a mistake. The cash 
was remitted for them, and not counted at all in my charge 
of remittances of Depository. 

Buffalo Depository, $1,500, all wrong; no such charge 
should be made to Boston Depository. 

CR. 

You allow me cash more than I charge $65 20 

You allow for books sent to New York 93 75 

Whereas it should be $609.19. 

You do not credit books to editors 46 79 

You do not credit cash for freight on Repository. . 171 60 
You do not credit for freight on Cincinnati books . . 12 43 

1864.— Merchandise received you charge $41 more than 
I received. Periodicals, I allow $2,075.04 more than you 
charge. 

Collections, I paid all separately; no charge to be made. 

CR. 

I sent cash more than allowed $255 53 

I sent books more than allowed 268 10 

I sent books to editors not credited 35 50 

Freight on Cincinnati books not credited 36 22 

1865.— You charged for books received from New 
York more than I received $2,688 06 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 233 

You do not charge any periodicals. I acknowl- 
edge 13,805 71 

You charge for collections 405 67 

I acknowledge 909 28 

CR. 

You credit me cash more than I sent $576 59 

(This grows out of collections, I presume.) 
You credit books sent to New York $178.98 less than I sent. 

You did not credit books to editors 45 58 

1866.— You charge me books sent $4250 more than I re- 
ceived; which is what I credit for Depository from Cincin- 
nati, which you do not charge. 

Then you charge me Poe & Hitchcock's account, which 
is the same thing over again. 
You credit me cash $976.70 more than I sent on Depository 

account. 
I sent books $26.88 more than credited. 
Freight on Cincinnati books not credited, $40.71. 

Yours truly, J. P. MAGEE.* 

THE PERIODICAL ACCOUNT. 

That account, upon examination, was found to 
have been kept in such a manner as to create 
a wrong impression of the condition of the busi- 
ness, and in such a way that almost any inter- 
pretation could be placed upon it. 

The account shows the following gains in the 
years as specified: 

In 1861 $85,973 56 

" 1862 80,959 10 

" 1803 29,522 44 

" 1865 31,527 03 

" 1866 17,933 84 

" 1867 55,025 04 

* The aggregate of the above muddle is only about $19,456.72, and 
do*»s not explain the $76.">:. , s.:{i ehar^ed off for correction of errors. 

But the above is not all— the profit and loss account shows that in 
]*»;*, $~),262.39 more was charged off as a " loss" to the Boston Deposi- 
tory. 



234 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

and losses in years as follows: 

In 1864 $6,585 82 

" 1868 12,037 38 

The subscription list and the advertising 1 busi- 
ness of the periodicals, during these years, 
show a marked uniformity. No good reason can 
be given for such variations. If the book-keep- 
ing were correct and honest they would not 
appear. 

From 1863 to 1868 inclusive, the following 
table shows a remarkable discrepancy between 
the average monthly cash balances as per cash 
book, and the books of the Shoe and Leather 
Bank, where the Book Concern deposits were 
supposed to be kept: 

Average monthly cash balances, as per cash books: 

1863 $17,088 43 

1864 20,697 00 

1865 12,219 66 

1866 13,605 12 

1867 72,916 03 

1868 87,397 94 

$223,924 18 

Average monthly cash balances in bank, as per statement 
of A. V. Stout, President Shoe and Leather Bank. 

1863 $23,800 00 

1864 28,400 00 

1865 19,500 00 

1866 27,100 00 

1867 « 26,400 00 

1868 51,100 00 

$176,300 00 

Aggregate difference between cash book and bank, $47,- 
624.18. 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 235 

From the account books I ascertained that, 
notwithstanding the' above large monthly cash 
balances during these years, the Concern paid 
in interest, oyer and above the interest received, 
as follows: 

1863 $ 811 26 

1864 294 12 

1865 583 73 

1866 2,218 40 

1867 1,710 40 

1868 1,314 04 



$6,932 15 

I shall be able to show that large sums of the 
Church's money, instead of being in the Shoe and 
Leather Bank to the credit of the Book Concern 
and the Missionary Society, were in Dr. Carlton's 
personal and private account. Whether he " de- 
rived incidental benefit," I shall leave the reader 
to judge from the facts given. 

But there is another collateral fact to which 
attention must be called. When we moved the 
store and offices from the old building, 200 
Mulberry Street, to the new one, 805 Broad- 
way, Dr. Carlton and myself left our old desks 
at the former. As the manufacturing depart- 
ment remained at 200 Mulberry Street, my duties 
called me there almost every day. Dr. Carlton's 
old desk being more conveniently located than 
mine, I had occasion to use it, and found in 
it a check book and a large number of can- 
celled checks, representing large sums of money. 
Upon examination, I found that many of the 



23G ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

checks were in favor of "Carlton and Porter," 
and others in favor of "Carlton and Lana- 
hau," thus showing connection with tne Jtfook 
Concern. For obvions reasons, after consult- 
ing several friends, and upon legal advice, 
I took charge of them, hoping for an occasion 
when I could get an honest examination, which 
I certainly should have gotten if the Carlton- 
Goodenough suit had come to trial. In view of 
my painful experience with the Book Committee 
I could not trust them in their hands. They 
would have referred them to Dr. Carlton, and 
a few remarks from him would have satisfied 
them. I exhibited them to some of the most 
prominent ministers and laymen, who expressed 
the opinion that they furnished probable evi- 
dence of an improper use of the money of the 
Church. I hoped to have an opportunity to pre- 
sent them to a committee which I knew would 
have to be appointed at the approaching Gen- 
eral Conference, to examine my charges of mis- 
management and frauds. When the General 
Conference met such a committee was appointed, 
but, strangely, I was not permitted to appear 
before it, nor before any member of it, to prove 
even the charges embodied in my printed report 
which had been referred to it, although Dr. Carl- 
ton, Mr. J. P. Kilbreth, Goodenough and the 
like, were in constant communication with some 
of them. Thus the checks have remained in my 
hands unexamined, and I now make them a part 
of this narrative, hoping that even at this late 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 237 

day I may secure an examination not only of 
them, but also of other closely related matters of 
great magnitude. 

It is proper to state that during my four years 
in the Book Concern as one of its Agents, I 
heard no more of the finances than if I had no 
connection with it. I never drew a check nor han- 
dled a dollar. Dr. Carlton had the sole man- 
agement of the monetary affairs, not only of the 
Book Concern, but also of all moneys that came 
there for the various connectional interests of 
the Church. He was also Treasurer of the Mis- 
sionary Society. Many of the checks are to him- 
self as Treasurer. The following is a statement 
of the amounts drawn out of his personal account 
in the "Shoe and Leather Bank," as per check 
book and checks. He also appears to have had 
deposits elsewhere. 

18.62. 

According to the check book and checks, he 
drew out of his personal and private account 
in the Shoe and Leather Bank $99,181.78, in 
amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 at a 
time. All my statements of the frauds com- 
mitted were so constantly and persistently de- 
nied, and attempts made to explain away facts, 
that I deem it proper to give a few sample copies 
of the checks: 

New York, January 20, 18G2. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of Missionary Society, Twenty-Six Hun- 
dred and Twenty-Four Dollars. 

$2,G24.00. THOS. CARLTON. 



238 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

Strange to say this check has no endorsement, 
but, I judge it was credited to T. Carlton, Treas- 
urer. 

New York, April 5, 1862. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of the Missionary Society, Fifty-Seven 
Hundred and Twenty-Seven Dollars and Thirty-two Cents. 
$5,727.32. THOS. CARLTON. 

Endorsed " C. & P." and " T. C. Treas." 

Many of these checks endorsed "C. & P." ap- 
pear to have been deposits to Carlton and Por- 
ter's credit, but in the above case, " C. P." & " T. 
C. Treasurer," added, may mean that it was 
deposited to the credit of T. Carlton, Treasurer, 
and that although the money was drawn from 
T. Carlton's personal account, it was the pro- 
perty of the Book Concern. Nothing but an ex- 
amination can explain these singular matters. 

New York, April 26, 1862. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of Shoe and Leather Bank, Twelve 
Thousand, One Hundred and Fifty-Eight Dollars. 

$12,158.00. THOS. CARLTON. 

The endorsement shows that it was in payment 
for purchase of certificate of stock. 

Another check is to E. Green, Ext. for $12,300, 
and another for $5,000, payable to T. Carlton, 
Treasurer, &c, &c. 

Another is to "D. Devlin, City Chamberlain," 
for $20,000. 

18G3. 

The amount drawn was $67,668.11, in checks 
of $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, &c. Some of the 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 239 

checks are in favor of Carlton and Porter, T. 
Carlton, Treasurer, and some to Chas. T. Carl- 
ton, his son. The following is a copy of one of 
these checks: 

New York, March 2, 1863. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, Five 
Thousand Dollars. 

$5,000. THOS. CARLTON. 

The endorsement is, "Pay to Daniel Denham, 
Jr. or order, Thos. Carlton, Treasurer." Under 
that endorsement is the following: "Daniel 
Denham, Jr." 

Daniel Denham, Jr., was brother-in-law to 
Thos. Carlton and cashier of the Book Concern, 
and is in that position yet. Did he receive the 
above from the Missionary Treasurer? 

Another check for $1,077.50 to Daniel Denham, 
Jr., is endorsed, "Daniel Denham, Jr., C. & P." 
The initials " C. & P." suggest that it may have 
been deposited to the credit of Carlton and Por- 
ter, Agents, of the Book Concern. But some of 
the checks to " S. J. Goodenough " are endorsed 
with his name, and the initials " C. & P." added, 
whilst the notes on the stubs of the check book 
show that they related to matters connected 
with the great Petroleum Oil Companies of the 
Book Concern. 

1864 

The amount drawn was $23,874.05, in favor of 
Carlton and Porter, Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, 
and others. 



240 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

1865. 

The amount drawn was $434,432.20. The fol- 
lowing are copies of some of the checks: 

New York, February 8, 1865. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of T. Carlton, Treasurer, Twenty 
Thousand Dollars. 
$20,000. THOS. CARLTON. 

Endorsed by "Thos. Carlton, Treasurer." 

New York, April 11, 1865. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to Mangain, Jenkins & Co., or order, Fifty Thous- 
and, Nine Hundred and Forty-Nine Dollars and Seventy- 
five Cents. 
$50,949.75. THOS. CARLTON. 

Endorsed " Mangain, Jenkins & Co." 

April 26th $11,157.54 was made payable to 
the same parties, and endorsed by them. The 
next day $10,962.75 was drawn to the same firm 
and endorsed by them, making in all $73,070.04 
paid to Mangain, Jenkins & Co., Stockbrokers, in 
sixteen days. With the above $20,000, and one 
of $6,000, to T. Carlton, Treasurer, not previously 
mentioned, the checks show that $99,000 were 
withdrawn from his personal and private ac- 
count in a few weeks. 

The above were followed by other checks in 
favor of Carlton and Porter, aggregating $23,500 
in ten days, all of which were endorsed " Carlton 
and Porter." 

Next comes the following: 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 241 

New York, July 13, 1865. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of H. A. Heiser & Sons, Twenty Thous- 
and, One Hundred and Forty-Five Dollars and Forty-eight 
Cents. 
$20,145.48. THOS. CARLTON. 

Endorsed " H. A. Heiser & Sons." 

In the meantime, checks to S. J. Goodenough, 
amounting to $3,700 were drawn. They appear 
to have been given in connection with the Oil 
Companies heretofore mentioned. 

These were followed by several checks to Carl- 
ton and Porter, aggregating $24,500 in a few 
days. 

The following is a copy of a check drawn: 

New York, September 14, 1865. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of 

Fifty-Seven Hundred and Sixty Dollars. 

$5,760.00. THOS. CARLTON. 

On the back of the check, in pencil, are " C. & 
P." "C." The name of the payee is not given. 
The bank's cancellation shows, however, that it 
was paid, but to whom is not stated. 

Others of the checks are to Carlton and Porter, 
T. Carlton, Treasurer, &c. 

The following appears: 

New York, October 18, 1865. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of Charles T. Carlton, Fifty Thousand 
Dollars. 

$50,000.00. THOS. CARLTON. 

This is followed three days later by two others 
of $5,000 and $25,000; and these ten days after, 



242 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

by one of $10,000, and another of $20,000, all 
drawn in favor of his son, Charles T. Carlton, the 
whole aggregating $110,000 in a period of thir- 
teen days. All of these checks are endorsed 
" Charles T. Carlton." 
Another check reads: 

New York, October 21, 1865, 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to Henry A. Heiser & Sons, or order, Forty-Two 
Thousand Dollars. 

$42,000.00. THOS. CARLTON. 

Endorsed by Henry A. Heiser & Sons. 

The aggregate of these checks shows that 
$152,000 was drawn out of his personal account 
in less than two weeks. 

The above are followed by numerous checks 
of $5,000 and $10,000, drawn to T. Carlton, Treas- 
urer, and Carlton and Porter, and also by one of 
$1,000 in favor of John E. Stevens, his nephew, 
September 8, 1865, endorsed "Jno. E. Stevens," 
with the initials " C. & P." directly underneath, 
in the handwriting of T. Carlton, indicating that 
though the amount originally w T as drawn from 
Thos. Carlton's private account, that in some 
way the money would come ultimately from the 
funds of the Book Concern. 

1866. 

The amount drawn according to check book 
and checks, was $125,402.90, to different persons, 
Carlton and Porter, Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, &c. 

A stub of the check book shows the following 
entry : 



ACCOUNTS AND FrNANCIAL METHODS. 243 

"Carlton and Porter, 145,000" (without date). 
There is no check among those in my possession 
of that amount, hut there are the following 
checks : 

New York, July 20, 1866. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to the order of Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, Fifteen 
Thousand Dollars. 

$15,000.00. THOS. CARLTON. 

Endorsed " For Deposit, T. Carlton, Treasurer." 

Of the same date, one for $10,000 to T. Carlton, 
Treasurer; another on July 26, for $10,000 to T. 
Carlton, Treasurer; and one on July 20, for 
$10,000 to Carlton and Porter. These aggregate 
$45,000, and seem to answer to the memorandum 
in check book referred to above, only, however, 
as to amount. Nothing less than an examina- 
tion can explain it. Why should the Senior 
Agent be constantly paying such large sums to 
Carlton and Porter, and to T. Carlton, Treasurer? 

The check book shows that Dr. Carlton fre- 
quently made deposits of interest in his personal 
account in sums ranging from $100 to $1,800. 
The following is a copy of one of his checks: 

New York, December 29, 1863. 
Shoe and Leather Bank: 

Pay to error in interest, One Hundred and Sixty-One 
Dollars and Sixty-two Cents. 

$161.62. THOS. CARLTON. 

The note on the stub of the check book is: 
"Error in interest in Shoe and Leather Bank, 
$1G1.(>2." The above looks as if it was the return 
of overpaid interest. 



L'44 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

The check book shows that Dr. Carlton kept 
large deposits in his personal account in bank 
of bonds and United States certificates; thus, 
at one time $50,000, at another, United States 
certificates for $50,000; at another time, $40,000. 

If the above was his property, the deposit in 
his personal account was proper. If it was the 
property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
should it not have been deposited to the credit 
of Carlton and Porter, or to Thos. Carlton, Treas- 
urer? The facts cannot be known without a 
careful examination. I used every possible 
means to secure such examination but failed, 
because Dr. Carlton, his Book Committee, and 
Mr. E. L. Fancher opposed me. If Dr. C. C. 
McCabe will give, the weight of his great influ- 
ence to secure an examination it can soon be 
ascertained whether he was, or was not, mis- 
taken when he confidently declared on the floor 
of the last General Conference that " the Church 
never lost a dollar by any one of its Agents." 

But the above is not all. Having learned that 
Dr. Carlton had large deposits in the Sub-treas- 
ury, at New York, I applied to the Sub-treasurer, 
who stated that he was not allowed to give any 
information in regard to deposits. Being inti- 
mately acquainted with President U. S. Grant, 
I went to Washington, and found that he was 
much interested in the Book Concern contro- 
versy. After hearing a brief statement, he gave 
me a letter to Hon. Geo. W. Boutwell, Secretary 
of the United States Treasury, who gave me an 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 245 

order on the Sub-treasurer, at New York, from 
whom I received a tabulated statement of the 
deposits of "Thomas Carlton, Treasurer," show- 
ing "date of deposit, amount, interest, when 
paid, and number of certificate." That statement 
lies before me as I write. In 1863, the amount 
was |50,000, in 1864 the amount was $140,000; 
in 1865 the amount was $75,000. 

In a recent correspondence with the present 
treasurer, Dr. H. Eaton, I was informed that no 
record of these loans of the Society's money was 
found "though diligent search has been made." 

1867. 

The amount drawn was $38,410.01 to Carlton 
and Porter, one to Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, for 
$15,000, etc. 

The bills receivable account of the Book Con- 
cern, a copy of which now lies before me, has this 
entry: "November 30, 1867, T. Carlton, Treas- 
urer, $45,000, paid." Nothing is said as to when 
or where it was to be paid. 

If the above $45,000 is the same transaction as 
that of 1866, noticed above, it looks as if T. Carl- 
ton had had that amount in his private account 
nearly a year before it was entered in the "Bills 
Receivable" account, or paid, and that he may 
have borrowed it from Carlton and Porter, in 
the name of "T. Carlton, Treasurer," when it 
was for his own personal use. 



246 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

1868. 

The checks are to Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, 
and Carlton and Lanahan. The, amount is com- 
paratively small, and the checks are from a check 
book different from that in my possession. 

At one of the meetings of the Book Committee, 
Kev. James Pike raised the question whether the 
Book Concern ought not to receive interest on 
its large balances in bank. The day following, 
Dr. Carlton presented to the Committee a letter, 
a copy of which is now lying before me, from Mr. 
A. V. Stout, President of the Shoe and Leather 
Bank, of date, November 6, 1869, in which he 
says: "We never have, and do not now allow 
interest on individual or corporate accounts ex- 
cept banks, and in the case of banks, the deposits 
are always large." I shall show that Mr. Stout's 
statement was incorrect. 

When my mandamus suit was pending in court 
the following affidavit was presented in reference 
to the accounts in the Shoe and Leather Bank: 

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. KISSAM. 

City and County of New York, ss.: 

William A. Kissam, being duly sworn, says: I was 
Cashier of the Shoe and Leather Bank from its organiza- 
tion in 1853 to the 31st of January, 1866. I knew Thos. 
Carlton during the most or all of this time. Thomas Carl- 
ton was, as I understood, one of the Agents of the Metho- 
dist Book Concern, in the city of New York. A Mr. Phil- 
lips was his associate during a portion of this time, and 
Dr. Porter during the remainder. In or about 1853 or 
1854 an account was opened with the Shoe and Leather 
Bank in the name of Carlton and Phillips. Afterward this 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 247 

account stood in the name of Carlton and Porter. I al- 
ways understood that they were the representatives of 
the Methodist Book Concern, and that these accounts were 
in fact the accounts of said Book Concern. 

There was also an account kept in the name of Thomas 
Carlton, Treasurer, but 1 do not recollect when that account 
was opened. The said account was still open when I left 
the bank. I do not know that Thomas Carlton was inter- 
ested in any other account, unless he had a private ac- 
count there, of which I cannot speak positively. The bank 
allowed Thomas Carlton, Treasurer, interest on his aver- 
age balances. Those balances were at times considerable 
amounts. The rate of interest allowed was 4 per cent., 
and sometimes 5. This interest was paid by giving a 
cashier check to the order of Mr. Carlton, Treasurer. 
These checks would be entered first to the credit of the 
cashier's account, and when paid would be debited to the 
same account. They would not be entered by the bank on 
the account of Thomas Carlton, Treasurer, and the books 
would not show that any interest had ever been paid. 
The cashier account would show that those interest 
checks were given and paid; but would not show what 
they were given for, but the exchange and interest account 
I think will show a debit of a corresponding amount. Mr. 
Stout, the President of the Bank, authorized the payment 
of the interest in the first instance, and it continued to be 
paid by me under that authority. The Shoe and Leather 
Bank, during the period of my connection with it, was in 
the habit of paying interest at the rate of 4 per cent, 
upon accounts where large balances were kept. 

W. A. KISSAM. 

Sworn to before me, this 30th day of May, 1871. 

JOSEPH J. BOSWORTH, JR., Referee. 

After the publication of the above affidavit, 
the Finance Committee of the Board of Mana- 
gers of the Missionary Society, investigated it, 
and made a report to the Board, which took the 
following action: 

Resolved, That this Board is gratified to find, after a 
full and careful examination of the case, that the allega- 



248 ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 

tion of Mr. Kissam, former cashier of the Shoe and 
Leather Bank, affecting the integrity of the Treasurer 
of the Missionary Society is not supported in any degree 
by the facts developed in the investigation. 

Pending the consideration of the second part of the 
report, it was amended so that the first paragraph should 
read as follows: The Committee further report, that ex- 
cept as hereinafter stated, no record appears upon the 
books of the Society of the loan by the Treasurer of the 
$50,000, which was returned to him and loaned again on 
the 3d day of November, 1863; and other temporary loans 
made by him are not recorded in the permanent books of 
the Society. The report as thus amended, including the 
following Resolution, was then adopted. 

Resolved, That the Treasurer of this Society be and 
hereby is directed to keep separate books of account in 
permanent form for all receipts and disbursements of the 
same, including loans, interest and discounts, and to make 
the bank the only depository of such funds as may come 
into his hands. 

I go into no criticism on the above, bnt the 
reader will please note Mr. Kissam's language, 
in regard to the checks: "They would not be 
entered by the bank on the account of Thomas 
Oarlton, Treasurer, and the books would not 
show that any interest had been paid," etc., etc. 

This same Committee in a report to the Board, 
June lfe, 1871, confirm Mr. Kissam's statement, 
as to interest, in saying that they found in the 
ledger, running from June, 1863 to November 1, 
1864, a check for interest, amounting to $969.86, 
and further report: 

It appears by the credit books of the bank, that on the 
same day as the Cashier's check for $969.86, bearing date 
November 3, 1863, the Treasurer received from the bank 
four certificates of deposit, amounting to the sum of $50,000, 
for which no check was drawn, and no entry made in the 
check-book, or other books of the Society; nor could the 



ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL METHODS. 249 

Treasurer, or his Cashier, inform the Committee where the 
$50,000 came from, nor had they any record of it. The 
Treasurer stated that the account of loans of the Society's 
money has been kept in small memoranda hooks, which 
have been mislaid or destroyed. 

Is there a secular corporation in the whole 
country that would have retained the treasurer 
a single day after so puerile an excuse of the use 
he had made of the Society's money? "Small 
memoranda books " were conyenient things to be 
" mislaid or destroyed " when an item of f 50,000 
was to be accounted for! But no change was 
made in the use of small memoranda books. 

According to the check book and checks, the 
Senior Agent drew out of his personal and pri- 
yate account, in the Shoe and Leather Bank, 
from 1862 to 1867, $773,114.49. He also appears 
to haye had deposits elsewhere. The checks 
show that instead of depositing the funds of the 
Book Concern to the credit of the Agents, Carl- 
ton and Porter, and after my election, to Carl- 
ton and Lanahan, and those of the Missionary 
Society, to Thos. Carlton, Treasurer, he kept 
large amounts of those funds in his personal ac- 
count, and from time to time checked out of that 
account into the official accounts, and thus kept 
up a balance in the latter. The aboye facts 
show extraordinary financial methods. But Mr. 
Kilbreth, in his report to the Book Committee — 
which report the Committee presented to the 
General Conference of 1872, with much lauda- 
tion — says, he does "not see how they could be 
improved." 



SUIT FOK SLANDER. 

January 11th, 1870, I received notice of a Suit 
for Slander and Libel, damage laid at $20,000, 
by S. J. Goodenough, whom I had charged with 
defrauding the Book Concern. Unpleasant as it 
was to be dragged into a civil court, knowing 
that the official and financial power of the Book 
Concern would be employed against me, I never- 
theless welcomed the suit, as I had welcomed 
the charges, hoping for an opportunity to prove 
more than 1 had alleged. The suit and the char- 
ges were gotten up in the Book Concern. Goode- 
nough himself had said to a friend that he " did 
not want to bring the suit," but that he had been 
" pushed to do it by a person high in the Book 
Concern." He might well have not wanted to 
do it, as he knew what his conduct had been, 
better even than I knew it. 

At the outset of the Book Room troubles, the 
venerable Dr. D. D. Whedon, Editor of the 
Methodist Quarterly Review, said to me : " The 
bottom of the troubles will never be reached, 
except through a civil court — they will spend 
$100,000 to prevent investigation." That vener- 
able and distinguished man had been in the Con- 
cern long before I went there, and although his 
hearing was not distinct, he had eyes to see and 
a most acute intuition. 

250 



SUIT FOR SLAXDER. 251 

Immediately upon notice of the suit, I employ- 
ed one of the most vigorous legal firms in New 
York, Messrs. Brown, Hall and Vanderpool, and 
handed them a retainer of $500, telling them I 
had no fear of the result. Of course, I had no 
control of the case after putting it in their hands, 
but I frequently requested them to bring it to 
trial as soon as possible. Believing that to per- 
severe in duty and be silent is the best answer 
to calumny, I said nothing about the suit, except 
to my attorneys, and went on about my duties as 
though nothing had happened, accumulating new 
facts of frauds, and additional evidence to meet 
the suit. The Christian Advocate, however, true 
to its purpose, found in the suit fresh material 
for renewed attacks upon me. My attorneys did 
not file my answer soon enough to satisfy the 
Advocate, and it sought to make the impression 
upon the public that I was evading the issue. 
The following is one of its bulletins: 

The Suit against Dr. Lanahan. — In response to the numer- 
ous inquiries concerning the suit instituted by Mr. S. J. 
Goodenough against Dr. Lanahan, it may be proper for 
us to state that, according to legal usage, the defendant 
was allowed twenty clays in which to file his answer to 
the complaint. At the expiration of that time the defend- 
ant's counsel (Messrs. Brown, Hall and Vanderpool, our 
present city Mayor, Hon. A. Oakey Hall, being a member 
of the firm) applied for a further extension of twenty days. 
This was granted. When this time expired, the same 
counsel urged a still further extension of time in which to 
file their answer, and an additional period of thirty days 
was allowed. The last extension bears date from the 20th 
of July. Of the reasons for the delay we are not advised. 



252 SUIT FOR SLANDER. 

Chief among the "numerous" inquirers was 
the writer of the above, the Kev. W. H. DePuy, 
assistant editor, who during* all those troubles 
was the convenient go-between for the defraud- 
ers and their allies. He was always on hand 
when any peculiar work was to be done. His man- 
ner was soft as the black velvet which Hoffman 
used to purchase at $20 per yard, and his move- 
ments as noiseless as if his feet were shod with 
wool. His name as a witness was in the plaintiff's 
complaint. Several times well-meaning, but mis- 
led friends, came direct from him to tell me what 
dreadful things he would swear to, and, as 
friends, advised me to resign. I made but one 
reply, "Perjury in a civil court is more danger- 
ous than falsehoods before a Book Committee." 

At last my busy counsel found time to file my 
answer. After denying the trashy fictions to 
which W. H. DePuy professed a willingness to 
swear, I directly charged S. J. Goodenough with 
dishonesty, in the payment of wages and the 
purchase of paper, and that in the latter, J. F. 
Porter was used as a go-between. 



FIFTH MEETING. 

Goodenough's suit was being pressed, in ap- 
pearance at least, and having in my possession 
what I believed to be evidence that the money 
of the Church had been fraudulently used in the 
immense Oil Companies that had been organized 
and carried on in the Book Concern by Dr. Carl- 
ton, Goodenough and other employees, and that 
an examination of the bank books and vouchers 
would furnish facts, additional to what I already 
possessed, of Goodenough's frauds, I applied 
to Dr. Carlton for said books and vouchers. He 
refused access to them, and quoted a resolution 
adopted by the Book Committee, "that no fur- 
ther examination should be made," and said: 
"The Cemmittee is the General Conference in 
its absence." I replied, that the General Confer- 
ence had authorized the Committee to do certain 
specified things, as it had the Agents, and for 
the Committee to deny me access to books and 
papers for the correctness of which I, in part, 
was responsible, was not only an assumption of 
authority which did not belong to them, but 
something worse — a desire to conceal the wrongs 
that had been committed on the honor and pro- 
perty of the Church. This was called, in one of 
the charges preferred against me, "Insubordina- 
tion to the Committee." 

253 



254 FIFTH MEETING. 

He then brought Mr. E. L. Fancher, his very 
convenient helper, who insisted that the Com- 
mittee had the right to deny me access to the 
books. Subsequently, I renewed my application 
through Judge Eeynolds and Dr. J. M. Buckley, 
now editor of the Christian Advocate, with the 
same result. I then requested my attorneys to 
apply to the court for a mandamus. Dr. Carlton, 
who engineered the former charges against me, 
was now forced to show his hand, and he pre- 
ferred charges in his own name. Learning that 
he was taking measures to have the Book 
Committee called together, I told him that 
there was no necessity for the meeting; that if 
he would give me access to the books my ap- 
plication to the court should be immediately 
withdrawn. He nevertheless called the Com- 
mittee. They met June 15th. I stated to them 
that if they would give me access to the books, 
I would withdraw my application, to which they 
made no reply. On the first day of the meeting 
I was asked to present any new evidence of mis- 
management and fraud, to which I replied: 

To the Book Committee: 

Brethren.— I am informed that resolutions are now before 
you looking to the extreme exercise of your power. I have 
heretofore presented to you evidence of fraud and misman- 
agement in the administration of the Book Concern which 
has never been fairly and fully investigated. I have also 
in my possession additional evidence of the same character, 
which I claim the right, if extreme action is taken, of 
bringing, through you, before the Church. The issue is a 
broad one, and, if tried, must be tried as such. 

The questions pending are more than questions of prop- 
erty; they are moral, and concern the integrity of the Book 



FIFTH MEETING. 255 

Concern, its claim to the confidence of men, and its power 
to do good to the world. 

Neither the Church nor the Christian world will ever be 
satisfied with any less than a just determination of the 
charges against the management of the Concern, and that 
can only be had by an impartial and thorough investigation 
of all the matters I shall bring before you. 

Yours very truly, J. LANAHAN. 

Immediately upon tlie presentation of the 
above, Rev. B. F. Kawlings presented the fol- 
lowing, which was adopted: 

Resolved, That it was no part of the purpose of this Com- 
mittee in asking Dr. Lanahan to lay before them whatever 
new evidence he had of fraud in the Book Concern, that 
such evidence should be a part of this investigation. 

Was there ever a more flagrant wrong upon 
every principle of common justice? They called 
for new evidence, and when I declared my readi- 
ness to present it, they answered, that it was 
" no part of their purpose that such evidence 
should be a part of this investigation." Perhaps 
in calling for new evidence they supposed that 
I had none to present, and that in calling for it 
they would make some show of seeking evidence. 
Such contradictions frequently marked their 
proceedings. 

Among the items in his complaint was the 
statement that if he had to attend court he could 
not attend to the Book Concern. Referring to 
that, in his speech before the Committee, Dr. 
Buckley said: 

Dr. Carlton, Alderman of Elizabeth, New Jersey, Director 
of the Shoe and Leather Bank, Director of the Home Life 
Insurance Company, Director of oil companies, the " Cres- 



256 FIFTH MEETING. 

cent," " Mineral Spring," " Drop," and I don't know how 
many more companies, Treasurer of the Missionary Society, 
and Trustee of divers literary institutions, makes a hue 
and cry that attending to legal proceedings takes his time 
from the Concern; but as he brought these troubles on him- 
self, and resisted every effort to obviate them, and as Dr. 
Lanahan has no private ends to gain and attends strictly 
to his business, there is no reason to suppose that he ought 
to be removed. 

Counsel for Dr. Carlton were Mr. E. L. Fan- 
cher and General Runyon. My counsel were 
Judge Geo. G. Reynolds, Dr. James M. Buckley 
and Thomas W. Price. Dr. Carlton's complaint 
was that I had applied to the court for a manda- 
mus to compel him to afford me access to the 
books of account, especially the bank books. 

I admitted that I had done so, and justified it, 
first, on the ground of my right as a Corporator. 
The following are the words of the old Charter 
of 1837: 

It shall be lawful for Thomas Mason and George Lane, 
Agents for the Methodist Book Concern, appointed by the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
their successors as such Agents, to take and hold real estate 
in trust, for the purposes of such agency, and to demise and 
convey the same; but the value of such real estate so taken 
and held by them shall not exceed two hundred thousand 
dollars. 

The real estate heretofore conveyed to Thomas Mason 
and George Lane, as Agents aforesaid, shall be considered 
as part of the real estate to be held by them and their 
successors, as such Agents, in trust as aforesaid. 

George Lane was Assistant Agent, yet an 
Agent. 

I also quoted the following from the new Char- 
ter which Dr. Carlton and Mr. E. L. Fancher, 



FIFTH MEETING. 257 

without a word of consultation with me, had 
gotten from the Legislature of New York, 1869 : 

Section 2d. Thomas Carlton and John Lanahan, Agents 
of the Methodist Book Concern, and their successor or 
successors in office, are hereby created a body corporate 
by the name of the Methodist Book Concern, in the City of 
New York, and by that name and style they and their 
successor or successors in office shall have perpetual suc- 
cession, and shall be capable in law of holding property, 
real, personal and mixed, either by purchase, gift, grant, 
devise or legacy, subject, however, to all existing provisions 
of law relative to devises and bequests by last will and 
testament, and to sell and convey the same; but the value 
of the real estate so held in the State of New York shall 
not exceed fifteen hundred thousand dollars, provided that 
all such property shall be held in trust, and used only for 
the purpose or purposes hereinafter designated. 

Section 3d. The persons named in the first section of this 
act shall hold their offices until the quadrennial session 
of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, in May, 1872, or until a successor or successors 
shall be elected in their places, and they shall have the 
management and disposition of the affairs and property of 
the said corporation during their term of service. 

The binding force of the Charter is too plain 
to admit of being questioned, and the responsi- 
bilities which it created rested as much upon 
me as upon my associate. In further justifica- 
tion I quoted the following from the Discipline 
as the plain law of the 'Church: 

The Agents shall have authority to regulate the publica- 
tions and all other parts of the business of the Concern, 
except what belongs to the Editorial Departments, as the 
state of the finances will admit and the demands may 
require. It shall be their duty to send an exhibit of the 
state of the Book Concern at New York to each session 
of the Annual Conferences, and report quadrennially to the 
General Conference. 



258 FIFTH MEETING. 

I contended that I could not unite with my 
associate in making such "exhibit" and "re- 
port " with the books of account, especially the 
bank books and vouchers closed against me, and 
more especially, when in possession of what I 
believed to be positive evidence that portions 
of the property had been prostituted to personal 
ends; that if the General Conference had intend- 
ed that there should be but one Agent, it would 
have required his signature alone to the ex- 
hibits and reports; that I was not expected to 
sign such documents upon the representation of 
others; that though an Assistant, I was never- 
theless an Agent; that as a holder of the trust 
I was equally responsible with my associate. 

The above is only the text of my reply. 

A majority of the Committee voted for my 
expulsion from office. The consummation of it 
required the concurrence of both of the Bishops. 
The following is from Bishop Janes' decision, 
which he states will be upon the "one act" of 
my suing out a mandamus. Bishop Janes says: 

If these books were necessary to the defendant for the 
purposes stated, he ought undoubtedly to have them. The 
interests of truth, of righteousness, and the golden rule 
of the Saviour, required it. As Assistant Agent he had a 
right, observing strictly the rules of the house in doing it— 
the same order as is observed by the senior Agent— to go 
and examine them. This right inheres in his office. It is 
just as necessary to him in the performance of several of 
the specified functions of his office as to the senior Agent, 
and therefore just as much his right. The law requires no 
officer to do what it does not empower him to do. If pre- 
vented by the senior Agent, he ought to take proper means 
to secure this right. In doing this there might come an 



FIFTH MEETING. 259 

exigency when it would be right for him to appeal to the 
civil authorities; but this should be a last resort, after all 
ecclesiastical means failed. The Book Committee are his 
disciplinary advisers. His first appeal should be to them. 
If they refuse to come together at his call, or, coming to- 
gether, fail to give him his rights, or the senior Agent 
refusing to carry out their instructions to that effect, and 
no other recourse being left him, after due counsel, he 
would undoubtedly be at liberty to seek the intervention 
of the civil courts. All this would take but a few days, 
as the history of the case shows— less time than the obtain- 
ing of the mandamus of the Court. I think the Assistant 
Agent erred in not seeking redress from the alleged action 
of the senior Agent in this way before he went to the Court, 
and the more so as Dr. Carlton professed to be governed 
by the instructions of the Book Committee. 

The manner of making the application to the Court in 
my judgment was erroneous. True, his counsel testify that 
they advised the course pursued, and drew up the affidavit, 
and gave it as their opinion that it was right. Still it seems 
to me Dr. Lanahan did wrong in allowing his counsel to 
use only the Charter in determining his official status. 
While in that he and Dr. Carlton are corporators or trustees 
jointly of the property of the Concern, yet in the Discipline 
and in the election of the General Conference he is styled 
Assistant Agent; and the Discipline and the usage of the 
Church in important respects made Dr. Carlton his superior. 
His counsel should have been required to correctly state 
his office in all proceedings where his official station was 
referred to. To do otherwise could not fail to produce a 
" conflict of authority " and to mislead. 

Dr. Lanahan must also be responsible for the reasons 
assigned for asking the mandamus. One reason given is 
in these words: " For the purpose of ascertaining whether 
all the property held by or standing in the name of the 
Agents or former Agents of said Book Concern has been 
turned over to the said corporation, this deponent desires 
10 examine the books of said Concern, and particularly the 
check-books, bank-books, and vouchers from 1856 till the 
present time." It was certainly right for the Assistant 
Agent to seek and possess this information. For the pur- 
pose of obtaining this information I hold he had a perfect 
right to personally examine any and all of the books of 



260 FIFTH MEETING. 

the Concern under the rules of the house. It prevented by 
the senior Agent, it would be a proper subject to bring to 
the attention of the Book Committee. As Dr. Lanahan does 
not claim in his affidavit to know there was any such 
property not so turned over and in jeopardy, the case does 
not seem to be so urgent that if the Book Committee and 
senior Agent failed to give him the information, the matter 
could not lie over until the meeting of the General Con- 
ference. I cannot, therefore, see the necessity for this legal 
procedure. 

In reference to the items of official misconduct alleged 
in the third general statement in the bill of complaints, 
I deem it proper to say that, after considering the cir- 
cumstances under which they occurred, so far as they did 
occur, and the explanations given by the defendant, I can- 
not agree with the Committee in their judgment upon the 
three first that they were official misconduct. The last 
paragraph in the communication of the complainant is in 
the words, " In view of the foregoing facts, and a great 
number of others which have been brought to your notice 
during the past two years, it remains for you, in your wis- 
dom as the supervisors of the Methodist Book Concern, to 
take such action as under the circumstances you may judge 
will best promote the interests of the Church and the Book 
Concern." When I read this I supposed all the issues of 
the past two years were to be examined; but none of the 
" great number of other facts " were traversed at all except 
in the speeches of counsel, neither did the Committee vote 
upon them. As the complainant and the Committee seemed 
to regard them only as rhetoric, I shall so treat them. The 
Committee will, therefore, perceive that my opinion, what- 
ever it may be, will be based wholly upon the first and 
principal complaint, namely, the suing out a writ of man- 
damus. 

The management of the Book Room having become a 
subject of inquiry and criticism, the question of its integrity 
can be settled only by a most thorough, competent, and 
impartial examination. This examination must be made in 
part at least, by laymen; not wholly by accountants, but 
men whose general business reputation and character are 
known throughout the Church. They must be so selected 
and appointed that there can be no apprehension, no sem- 



FIFTH MEETING. 261 

blance even, of their being partisan; their roots, even, must 
not be found in partisan grounds. Nothing short of this 
will satisfy the Church; nothing short of this ought to 
satisfy the Church; nothing short of this need satisfy the 
Church, for it will certainly be had. No human power can 
prevent it. It may be embarrassed and delayed, but can- 
not be stopped. The longer it is delayed the more thorough 
it will be. An examination that would have been satisfac- 
tory six months ago would not be satisfactory to-day. 
Books and book-keeping, buying, selling, printing, binding, 
all the modes and methods of business must be inquired 
into and reported upon. It is because the Church sees 
this examination to be inevitable that she is calmly waiting 
for its results, and because she sees it to be inevitable she 
will continue calmly to wait until it comes. She will not 
be agitated, but wait in quietude and confidence, and in my 
judgment all parties can well afford to wait until, in an 
orderly way, and through appropriate agencies, this result 
may be obtained. Whether it can be had before the General 
Conference or not I cannot say. If it can I shall be glad; 
if not, I am sure it will come then or afterward. 

With Dr. Lanahan I have been acquainted for more than 
a quarter of a century. I have assigned him to some of 
the most responsible and difficult appointments in his Con- 
ference. He has always met his obligations with fidelity 
and ability. I have honored him in my heart as well as in 
my administration. My confidence in him as a Christian 
brother and minister of the Lord Jesus Christ is unshaken, 
and my affection for him undisturbed. My decision refers 
only to his official act as Assistant Agent of the Book Con- 
cern. His act of suing out a writ of mandamus at the time 
and in the manner he did I cannot approve; but the question 
whether the error is sufficient to remove him from office I 
have found a very difficult one to decide. With hesitancy 
(for on this one point my mind has wavered up to this 
moment) the preponderance of my convictions of offit-ial 
duty in the case requires me. though it is the most painful 
official duly of my life, to concur with the Committee in 
their action of the 24th instant, in removing Rev. John 
Lanahan from his office as Assistant Book Agent at New 
York, and I hereby concur. E. S. JANES. 



262 FIFTH MEETING. 

As Bishop Ames' opinion is brief, I give the 
whole of it: 

OPINION OF BISHOP AMES. 

New York, June 26, 1871. 
To the Book Committee: 

Dear Brethren.— Bishop Janes and myself agree in our 
judgment touching the law which governs the Book Agents 
in the discharge of their official duties. 

First. That the Agent has sole control in conducting the 
business of the Concern and that he is to be assisted by 
the Junior Agent, who should receive the wishes of his 
official superior with deference, and should execute them 
with cheerfulness. I do not understand that there has been 
any conflict of authority between the Agents under this 
provision of the law. 

Second. That in deciding what books shall be published, 
the Agents have equal authority. They must mutually 
agree before a volume can issue from the press. This is 
the law, and the practice under it has been uniform. The 
names of both Agents are on the title page of every book. 

Third. The Agents are required to make exhibits annu- 
ally and quadrennially. 

This official duty required of the Agents by the General 
Conference is equally binding on each, and the document 
always has the signatures of both Agents. 

It appears to me absolutely necessary, in order to the 
right performance of this important duty, that each of the 
Agents should be permitted to enjoy, without any restric- 
tion, the right to examine all the books and papers of the 
Concern. 

On the question of the unrestricted official right of the 
Assistant Agent to examine all the books and accounts of 
the Concern there has arisen a conflict of authority. It 
seems to me from an examination of this case that the 
Assistant Agent has not been permitted to exercise this 
right. He applied to the courts for aid that he might secure 
it. Such an act must be judged of in the light of its own 
surroundings. 

I so judge of this, and so judging, I do not feel justified 
in visiting upon it so severe a penalty as that inflicted by 
the Committee. 



FIFTH MEETING. 263 

Bishop Janes and myself differ only in the conclusion 
which we draw from the facts on this single point, and in 
our long and intimate official relations with each other we 
have always drawn together so harmoniously and pleas- 
antly that it pains me to differ from my colleague in the 
slight matter of drawing a conclusion; but, as I do differ, 
honesty compels me to say so. But with this single excep- 
tion, I agree most cordially in all that Bishop Janes has 
said in his written opinion in the case. 

In conclusion, brethren of the Committee, I must say 
that the penalty inflicted by your verdict appears to me 
to be more severe than the gravity and importance of the 
complaints justify; and, as I find myself at variance with 
your judgment, duty compels me to say that I cannot and 
do not concur in your verdict removing Rev. John Lanahan 
from his office of Assistant Book Agent of the Book Con- 
cern at New York. 

(Signed) E. R. AMES. 

Neither Bishop Janes nor Bishop Ames could 
have said less of me than they did. As to the 
searching investigation which Bishop Janes pre- 
dicted, it never came. 

My application to the court for mandamus 
was denied by Judge Barnard. The result did 
not disappoint me. While the case was pending, 
E. Grant, who was in the confidence of the par- 
ties, said to a person, who reported it to me, 
"Do you know how the mandamus case was 
managed? It was first brought before Judge 
Cordoza, and from him passed to Judge Ingram, 
and from him to Judge Barnard, who is intimate 
with Mr. Fancher and at the Shoe and Leather 
Bank." That remark foreshadowed what the 
decision would be. In his decision Judge Barn- 
ard went out of his way to abuse my witnesses 
and lecture me, stating that if I wanted infor- 



2CA FIFTH MEETING. 

niatioii I should have gone to Grant, the book- 
keeper, or to Denham, the cashier, and at the 
same time glorified the great prosperity of the 
Book Concern. He also quoted from the resolu- 
tion of the Book Committee, making me Dr. 
Carlton's subordinate, and said: 

The relator is inferior to and subordinate in position to 
the respondent (Dr. Carlton), and wholly subject in his 
official action to the control and direction of Dr. Carlton, 
and the relator has no right to any books or papers which 
the respondent or the Book Committee does not voluntarily 
furnish him. Where the relator's right is denied, of course 
the writ will not be issued. 

Soon after the above decision was rendered, 
Judge Barnard was impeached before the Legis- 
lature of New York, on charges, thirty-nine in 
number, prepared by the Bar Association. The 
Legislature assembled July 17, 1872, at Sara- 
toga. He was found guilty and dismissed from 
the Bench. He was charged with corrupt con- 
duct in granting injunctions, and appointing 
receivers in various suits, with receiving pres- 
ents and other personal favors, and with un- 
seemly conduct in open court. The last charge 
was drunkenness. The right kind of Judge for 
such a case! It was spoken of as an open secret, 
that Mr. Fancher, who was " intimate " with the 
Judge, wrote his decision. There is certainly 
marked similarity between some of the Judge's 
language and the speech of Mr. Fancher before 
the Book Committee, as reported in the papers. 
The decision and the speech are now lying be- 
fore me. 



FIFTH MEETING. 265 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1872. 

There is another matter that calls for refer- 
ence in order to a full understanding of this case. 
At the General Conference of 1872 I presented 
a report of my investigation of mismanagement 
and frauds, and asked its reference to a Com- 
mittee to be selected by the Bishops from men 
of proved business capacity and experience. The 
subject, having to do alone with methods of busi- 
ness and alleged facts in its conduct, was one 
for whose consideration trained business men 
possessed all the requisite qualifications, and of 
the kind and scope seldom found in others. The 
Bishops as a body could be depended upon to 
exercise the greatest care in their selection, and 
their wide acquaintance gave them opportunity, 
out of many who would be suitable for this work, 
to choose the best. The appointees themselves 
would have every inducement to be painstaking, 
thorough and impartial in their examination, 
and just in their final conclusion. Why, then, 
my proposal should have been objected to by 
any who were not swayed by prejudice or self- 
interest, it is difficult to conceive. And yet the 
special friends of Dr. Carlton and the Book Com- 
mittee arrayed themselves against it with un- 
yielding opposition, contending for a committee 
of one from each of the seventy-two delegations 
that composed the General Conference. Their 
views prevailed, and to this Committee my re- 
port, with the majority and minority reports of 



266 FIFTH MEETING. 

the Book Committee and those of Dr. Carlton, 
Mr. Kilbreth and Mr. Gnnn were referred. 

These several reports as subsequently publish- 
ed in the General Conference Journal make one 
hundred and forty octavo pages of closely print- 
ed matter. Mr. Gunn's alone was the result of 
fifteen months' thorough examination of the ac- 
counts. An examination of all these reports 
would have occupied the time of an accountant 
at least three months. Yet they were to be 
examined by this committee in less than parts 
of twelve days. Thus was realized what I, in 
my report, anticipated in these words: 

Efforts will be made to bring side issues before you, with 
the view of preventing a direct and speedy examination of 
the main questions, mismanagement and fraud. You may 
be overwhelmed with documents, and then assured that it 
will be impossible for you in the time of your session to 
examine them. 

But this is not all. A paper called a " memo- 
rial," was presented to the General Conference 
by Dr. D. Curry, from S. J. Goodenough, denying 
his frauds, which was also referred to the Com- 
mittee. In it is the following: 

As showing the inspiring cause of the course pursued by 
Dr. Lanahan to break up the monopoly of Mr. Porter, as 
he terms it, I can put the Committee of the General Con- 
ference on the track of investigating a matter which might 
throw some light on his motives— whether while he was 
moving to get rid of Mr. Porter and myself, he was not 
trying to procure a position for his own son as a partner in 
the paper business. You may draw your own inference. 
If desired, the names of the parties who can furnish infor- 
mation will be forthcoming. 



FIFTH MEETING. 267 

I called for an examination of the scandalons 
statement, bnt no attention was given to my call. 
An unheard-of thing too in the history of Gen- 
eral Conferences is that that so-called "memo- 
rial/' which was never heard of after it was 
read, should hud a place in the Journal, with the 
official documents (see Journal, p. 681.) Thus 
matters were managed to create complications 
and divert attention from the main question. 

But this is not all; whilst the so-called "me- 
morial" was thus honored, all the evidence of 
the long continued frauds embodied in the report 
of Mr. Gunn was purposely excluded from the 
Journal. That report with its accompanying evi- 
dence cost the Book Concern nearly $6,000. There 
were many busy hands at work in those days. 

The charges in my report were made as defi- 
nite and positive as possible, giving names, and 
dates, and details, with studied brevity and suf- 
ficiently careful exactness to prepare the way 
for an intelligent, easy and thorough investiga- 
tion, and I was ready with all needed evidence 
to substantiate them. It might, therefore, be 
reasonably supposed that I would have been 
summoned before the Committee, or at least one 
of the Sub-committees. But my presence was 
neither sought nor allowed at any of their meet- 
ings. I was treated as if I was absolutely and 
entirely outside the case. At the same time 
members of the Committee were in constant 
communication with Dr. Carlton, S. J. Goode- 
nough, E. Grant, J. P. Kilbreth and like-minded 



268 FIFTH MEETING. 

persons, who were their chief sources of infor- 
mation, and their statements ruled out what- 
ever conflicted, as untrustworthy, no matter 
whence it came or however it was confirmed. 

In their report to the General Conference, they 
quote from the report of Mr. Kilbreth, but 
make no allusion to Mr. Gunn's report, nor do 
they so much as mention his name. They admit 
" repeated frauds " in the Book Concern, locating 
them in "the manufacturing department," and 
"chiefly, if not wholly in the Bindery," whose 
Superintendent, Mr. Hoffman, is accused of car- 
rying on a system of frauds for years, " by which 
the Concern sustained very considerable losses." 
Notwithstanding all this, they exculpate the 
"Agent and Assistant" from blame. Perhaps 
the Assistant Agent ought to feel relieved that 
for once he escaped! Hoffman was made the 
scapegoat. 

The Committee closed their report with the 
following remarkable statement: "It is, per- 
haps, sufficient to say that your Committee have 
no evidence before them tending to show that 
the exhibits should be different from what they 
are." Such evidence was amply supplied in my 
report, and especially in that of Mr. Gunn. Will 
my reader please turn to pages 201, 207, 208-209 
of this narrative for an answer to the above 
statement? 



OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODENOUOH. 

The case was called in court in the month of 
May, 1871. Counsel on both sides were present. 
The Judge asked if they would be ready on a 
day specified by him in the next week? They 
answered affirmatively. On the designated day, 
Dr. Carlton, Dr. Daniel Wise, and one or two 
others from the Book Concern were there with 
S. J. Ooodenough and his attorneys. My coun- 
sel, accompanied by ex- Judge Porter, and my- 
self, were there. I had no supporters or sympa- 
thizers from the Book Concern, but I was armed 
with facts sufficient to scatter like chaff a thous- 
and such suits for " slander and libel." The 
case was called and the plaintiff's counsel, in- 
stead of being ready, called for the reading of 
my answer. The presiding Judge remarked, 
" You said you would be ready to-day." Counsel 
moved to have the answer amended. Instead 
of giving the proper names, the answer specified 
"certain New York houses," who were well 
known and would have appeared as witnesses. 
I requested my counsel to amend the answer on 
the spot, and have the trial go on. He replied, 
"No, they are dodging; let them dodge." And 
dodge they did, against my wishes. If it had 
been put off by my counsel, another bulletin 
would no doubt have appeared in the Christian 



270 OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 

Advocate, but, of course, in " response to numer- 
ous inquiries." They never appeared in court 
again. Their narrow escape — manifestly pre- 
arranged — taught them a lesson which they did 
not disregard. 

The General Conference held in Brooklyn, 
May, 1872, adjourned June 4th. Three days after 
I had occasion to visit the Book Concern, where 
I remained a short time. From there, I took a 
street car to visit a friend in his office, more than 
a mile distant, in another part of the city. Soon 
after I had gotten there, two men appeared at 
the office door, and one called my name. I re- 
sponded. He laid his hand upon me and said, 
"You are under arrest," and handed me the 
following: 

Samuel J. Goodenough, Plaintiff, 
against 
John Lanahan, Defendant. 
To the Sheriff of the City and County of New York: 

It having been made apparent to me by affidavit, and to 
the plaintiff in this action that Samuel J. Goodenough has 
a sufficient cause of action against John Lanahan for 
slander and libel, and has commenced action therefor, 
you are required forthwith to arrest the defendant in this 
action for the cause aforesaid, and hold him in the sum of 
$5,000, and to return this order to Brown and Estis, plain- 
tiff's attorneys, at 229 Broadway, New York, on the 15th 
day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two. 
JOHN J. FREEDMAN, 
Judge Supreme Court. 

I merely glanced at it, and putting it in my 
pocket, said: "Gentlemen, please take seats 
until I write a note to my family." The head 



OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 271 

man gruffly replied, " We have no time for that." 
" What/' I said, " no time to allow me to write 
a note to my family?" "No time," he replied. 
"Please give me your name, Sir?" "That has 
nothing to do with the matter," he quickly re- 
sponded. "What! you an officer, and ashamed 
to give your name? I am at your disposal." 
They marched me off to the Sheriff's office, in 
the City Hall. There the assistant officer left 
the head man and myself. I suppose he thought 
one was enough to manage me. In the same 
gruff style, as if he really felt that he was more 
than a man in authority over me, he said, " Are 
you prepared to give security?" I replied, "You 
have treated me with all possible rudeness, as 
if I were a common thief; refused me a brief 
moment to write a note to my family; please 
exhaust whatever authority you may have as an 
officer, and then relieve me of your presence." 
He quickly disappeared, as I supposed, to report 
to the plaintiff's attorneys, whose office hap- 
pened to be in the same building with that of Mr. 
E. L. Fancher. When he returned, he asked in 
his mandatory style, " Are you prepared to give 
security? " " I have given you my answer," I re- 
plied, " Please do the work given you, and I shall 
feel relieved when you are out of my sight." 
"Then you must go to jail. Come along." I 
went " along," of course, to Ludlow St. Jail. In 
the walk to the Jail he seemed to have softened 
in Ms manner, for he said to the Jailer, " Treat 
this gentleman cleverly." I slept none that 



272 OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 

night, not, however, on account of what had 
occurred, but it was a new thing for me to see 
bugs creeping on the wall of my bed-room. The 
first information my family received of my im- 
prisonment was through the afternoon papers. 
But they were not in the least disturbed. They 
knew me better than the famous Book Commit- 
tee, better than the official Editors, better than 
Thomas Carlton and Mr. E. L. Fancher. 

My brother arrived at New York the next 
morning. Mr. Augustine Smith and Mr. Daniel 
Appleton of the Publishing House of Appleton 
& Company, gave bond of $5,000 for my appear- 
ance in court to meet the suit. Prominent citi- 
zens of New York, in and out of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, requested me to accept of a 
public reception, and I was informed that clergy- 
men of other than my own Church, expressed a 
desire to participate. Some gentlemen of wealth 
asked me to accept of a substantial recognition, 
all of which I declined, of course. I narrate 
these facts, not only because they are a part of 
this narrative, but to show that the condition 
of things in the Book Concern was known and 
talked of outside of the . Methodist Episcopal 
Church better than they seemed to have been 
known in it. I was really amazed to learn that 
in a large class of business houses, the manage- 
ment of the Concern had been a by-word. In 
other publishing houses, the workmen were in 
the habit of speaking of it in their slang way. 
A few in the Church had previously said to me 



OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODENOUGH. 273 

that "they had long believed that all was not 
right in the Book Boom; that there was no power 
to go behind the Agents ; but now, as I was one, I 
could act." Well, I did act, and it came near 
costing me what is dearer to every honest man 
than life itself — my character, which had been 
built up through more than thirty years of as 
true and faithful service in the Church as one 
of my physical and mental ability could render ; 
a man of one work — the work assigned me by 
my Church. 

These words will be read by some who have 
known me and my work as a teacher of men 
in the things of God during my entire life. 

I never had a doubt that when I left the Book 
Concern that morning, I was followed, and that 
information was promptly conveyed to the Sher- 
iff's office as to where I could be found. I had 
not been hiding. Sheriff Brennan's men could 
have found me at my residence. And why were 
two men sent? Did they suppose force would 
be required? The manner in which the head 
man spoke and acted impressed me that he 
rather desired to have occasion to handle me. 
He was evidently acting under instructions. 

The New York papers drew striking contrasts 
between the treatment I received, and that ac- 
corded to William M. Tweed, who was charged 
with plundering the City Government. The fol- 
lowing is from the Times: 

When Bill Tweed, the biggest rogue of the age, was to 
be arrested, what did this same Brennan do? Sent him a 



274 OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 

private note, politely informing him that at a certain hour 
on a certain day the Sheriff would humbly wait upon His 
Highness, hoping that it would not cause him any inconven- 
ience, &c, &c. At the appointed time, Brennan obsequi- 
ously made his bow to the " Boss " and— took him to jail? 
Not a bit of it. 

Then and there he made all the arrangements which 
Tweed was pleased to dictate, waited day after day for his 
convenience, and apologized for his intrusion. In the same 
way he treated the other Ring thieves. And yet, when a 
well-known clergyman is to be arrested in a malicious suit, 
supported only by ex parte affidavits, he sends two ruffians 
to insult and degrade him, and thus renders himself re- 
sponsible for an outrage which will excite indignation far 
beyond the limits of the Methodist Church. 

The proceeding recalls that of the late Fisk against 
Samuel Bowles, of the Springfield Republican, and suggests 
the inquiry whether the broken Book Concern Ring has as 
complete control of the New York ministers of the law as 
the broken Erie Tammany Ring had. The suit is re- 
garded as vindictive, and it will be generally believed that 
his unnecessary arrest and the treatment incident to it 
are designed as a punishment for having brought charges 
against the old managers of the Book Concern, and— which 
is more exasperating— for having proved them. 

But the treatment I received from Sheriff 
Brennan's men was insignificant — as nothing — 
compared with that which I had received from 
a majority of the Book Committee in their Star 
Chamber meetings, where my written official 
statements, as one of the Agents, corroborated 
by employees of the House and merchants of 
the highest respectability, were disallowed, be- 
cause they were denied by the defrauders. 

Epithets and abusive language were attribut- 
ed to me, as false as falsehood could make them; 
but I said not a word. Even my Church attorney 



OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXQUGH. 9J5 

was assailed — Judge Beynolds — whose splendid 
character, intellectually and morally, made his 
very shadow as sunshine; and even he was denied 
access to the columns of the Christian Advocate 
when misrepresented by it, and for defense, had 
to resort to the hospitality of The Methodist, of 
New York, an unofficial paper. The combination 
against the truth was as compact as the fingers 
of a shut hand when the hand is turned into a 
fist, and that fist, as if iron-clad, was always 
ready to strike whatever approached to an ex- 
posure of the frauds! But of all the painful 
things I had to endure, the most painful was 
the apparent inability — or something else — of 
the Church to burst through the combination, 
and bring to the light by a commission of inde- 
pendent and honest examiners the real facts. 
That burnt me like molten lead. When my own 
Conference proposed it, the Christian Advocate 
exclaimed, "By what commission! Who shall 
appoint such a commission and prescribe its 
province and duties? To do this is revolution- 
ary. It is rebellion." 

The Committee had spoken "officially," and 
although they had unanimously declared in their 
first report that there had been " no serious loss " 
in one department, and "great mismanagement " 
and "serious loss" in another; and in their sec- 
ond report "no loss or mismanagement at all," 
with ;i minority reaffirming the truth of the 
first report, and declaring it "a meagre state- 
ment" of the real facts, that with the Advocate, 



27G OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 

ended all controversy, and dissent from it was 
called a " slander on the Church/' and " rebellion 
against official authority ! " Who but the guilty 
need have feared an examination by a commis- 
sion of honest men? I literally entreated for 
the appointment of a commission by the Bishops 
of the Church. But the coverers of the frauds 
were afraid to trust any Committee, and by 
their contradictory reports, had put themselves 
on trial before the world. That explained the 
Advocate's cry of " revolution " and " rebellion," 
for its Editor and his Assistant had been among 
the chief advisers of the Committee. 

But what became of the suit, founded upon 
the sworn-to complaint of S. J. Goodenough, 
that I had damaged his spotless character, and 
injured him in his business relations with the 
public to the extent of f 20,000, with the name of 
W. H. DePuy, in the complaint, as an important, 
if not chief, witness? The following facts an- 
swer that question, and furnish additional proof 
that G-ooclenough and his supporters knew that 
they could not stand before any honest tribunal, 
civil or ecclesiastical. 

A short time after I had returned to my home 
in Baltimore, I received a note from my attor- 
neys, stating that they were notified that the 
suit would soon be called in the court, and asking 
if I could be there? I answered that upon notice 
I would be there promptly. At a later period, 
my counsel wrote me that the plaintiff's counsel 
were authorized to withdraw the suit if I would 



OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 277 

pay half the costs. I replied, that I would agree 
to nothing of the kind, but would rather pay 
all the costs and have it tried. 

Xext I received a letter from my counsel en- 
closing the following from the plaintiff's counsel : 

Brown and Estis, 229 Broadway, New York. 

January 7th, 1873. 
Messrs. Brown, Hall and Vanderpool: 

Gentlemen.— Our proposition in the Goodenough case was 
to discontinue it without the costs to either party as against 
the other. No concessions were required of either party. 
We were induced to advise our client to take this step by 
gentlemen in the Methodist Church who were mutual 
friends to both parties, and who claimed that the Church 
would suffer by the trial of the case, no matter how it 
might result. 

We renew our proposition that it may be perfectly under- 
stood. Please advise us whether the offer is satisfactory, 
and Oblige yours truly, 

BROWN AND ESTIS. 

The above I promptly rejected. 

My next information was that the suit had 
"gone by default." Of course it cost Goode- 
nough nothing. It was not his suit. He had 
been " pushed to it by a person high in the Book 
Concern." The suit was gotten up for a two- 
fold purpose, to make a show of injured inno- 
cence, and frighten me into a resignation, or a 
withdrawal of my charges. To have done either 
would have disgraced me in my own eyes, and 
have been a betrayal of the trust that had been 
committed to me by my Church. I never doubt- 
ed that the plaintiff's attorneys had been made 
to believe that " mutual friends of both parties w 



278 OUTCOME OF THE SUIT OF GOODEXOUGH. 

gave the above advice. But I never believed 
that any of my friends were among the number. 
"Injure the Church!" Injure sunshine! Ah! 
that was the constant and convenient cry used 
to divert attention and cover up what had been, 
through long years, eating out the very vitals 
of the Book Concern in which the Church took 
great pride, and whose management she had so 
often lauded to the very skies, never dreaming 
of the wrongs that were being done under its 
roof. 



CONCLUSION. 

In reviewing tliis long history the reader can- 
not bnt be struck with the varied changes of 
my position. Beginning as a prosecutor of mis- 
management and fraud, I soon found myself 
treated as a presumptive criminal. I was not 
even credited with an honest, if mistaken pur- 
pose to discover the truth, but was arraigned as 
an enemy to the Book Concern, and a slanderer 
of its reputation. For five months I was held 
up before the public as guilty of " official mis- 
conduct," "malfeasance," "neglect of official 
duty," "untruthfulness," "irascibility," "slan- 
derous disposition," "violation of pledges," "in- 
subordination," "want of business qualification," 
and "other objectionable personal characteris- 
tics" which disqualified me for the position of 
Assistant Book Agent. The public was left to 
guess what the "other objectionable character- 
istics" were, as if their moral turpitude made 
them too offensive to be described. 

Instead of trying the guilty parties, the Book 
Committee made haste to try m me. I may say 
wi i h truth, that the majority, so far from dealing 
with me as impartial judges, planned and la- 
bored to convict me. The one thing uppermost 
in their proceedings was to discredit me before 
the world and get me out of the way. The fact 



280 CONCLUSION. 

that a respectable minority of their own num- 
ber adhered to the conviction that my charges 
were founded in truth, instead of making them 
pause in their pitiless persecution, only intensi- 
fied their bitterness and impelled them to re- 
newed efforts to compass my destruction, shield 
the defrauders, and thus mislead the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. The whole country was scan- 
dalized by the efforts made to drag me down and 
ruin me. Those efforts would not have been 
ventured but for the confidence felt that a ma- 
jority of the Committee were in full sympathy 
with them, and would lend a willing ear to every 
charge preferred against me. 

That I passed through those trials as I did, 
standing almost ; alone with infinite odds against 
me, as I now look back, seems almost a miracle 
to myself. Hired spies followed me when I left 
my office, and stood in front of my door at night 
to ascertain with whom I was in communication. 
Twice I was suspended, and once removed from 
my office. I was sued for slander and cast into 
prison; week after week, for two years, I was 
compelled to read violent attacks upon my con- 
duct and motives in the very paper which bore 
my name as one of its publishers, and I not 
permitted to utter a word of explanation or de- 
fense, though its columns were open to eulogi- 
ums upon the defrauders. Even my Conference 
was maligned and denounced through the secu- 
lar press as " infamous," by the Chairman of the 
Book Committee, Rev. B, F. Rawlings, in the 



CONCLUSION. 2S1 

card already quoted from the Indianapolis Daily 
Journal, because it did no more than declare its 
confidence in my integrity, and call for an exami- 
nation of the affairs of the Church's Publishing 
House by a commission of laymen skilled in busi- 
ness matters. 

God's ways are dark, but soon or late 
They touch the shining hills of day; 
The false can poorly brook delay, 

The true can well afford to wait. 



APPENDIX I. 

A SPECIMEN OF FRAUDULENT TRANS- 
ACTIONS. 

(Referred to on page 109.) 

In the second year of the Book Room troubles, 
1871, Rev. Dr. Munsey, Secretary of the Board 
of Foreign Missions of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, called at the Book Concern to 
see Dr. Carlton, who was absent. Dr. Munsey 
informed me that the object of his visit was to 
see Dr. Carlton about a large debt due from the 
Society which he represented. For reasons, I 
asked no questions. He called again the next 
day, and he and Dr. Carlton retired to a private 
room. Dr. Carlton said nothing to me about the 
debt, or the object of Dr. Munsey's visit. I knew 
all the officials of the Southern Church by name, 
and examined the account books to ascertain 
whether the debt was to the Book Concern, but 
found no entry to any of them. After waiting 
several days to see if Dr. Carlton would say 
anything to me, I asked him if the Church South 
was debtor to us? He replied that it was. I 
asked him if it was entered on our books? He 
answered me, that it was. I requested him to 
show me the entry. He proposed to do so the 
next day. My experience with him and our book- 
keeper had been such, that I deemed it best not 

282 



APPENDIX I. 



283 



to let the matter be delayed for a day. He 
finally requested the book-keeper to "turn to 
those Southern accounts." The book-keeper 
opened the ledger to some small accounts of 
long standing, and then addressing me, said, if 
I would name the persons he could easily find 
the account. I replied that Dr. Carlton could 
give him the name. Just then a gentleman came 
into the office of the Agents and Dr. Carlton 
quickly left me and the book-keeper, and went 
to meet the visitor, and I returned to my desk 
no little surprised. In a few minutes, Dr. Carl- 
ton again went to the book-keeper, and after 
a brief conversation with him, the latter inform- 
ed me that he had found the account I desired 
to see, and pointed to the following, which is a 
copy as it appeared on the ledger: 

BROWN BROTHERS & Co. 



July 
Oct. 



815,400 



3,000 
2,500 



20,900 



31 By Cash 



1863. 
Jany. 



$292 14 

20,607 86 
20,900 00 



The above was the only entry in the books 
until I exposed it. 

Thus the ledger had been made the book of 
original and exclusive entry, something unheard 
of in honest book-keeping. I expressed surprise 
that there should be charged to one of 'the 
wealthiest banking firms in New York a loss, 
and asked if we had anvthincr to show that the 



284 APPENDIX I. 

Cliurcli South was our debtor. Dr. Carltou then 
produced several notes, drawn by William T. 
Smithson, Treasurer of the Missionary Society 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, dated 
"March 16, 1868," payable in 1871 and 1872, 
respectively. On one of the notes there was a 
credit of $1,300.00. I asked him if that pay- 
ment had been entered in our books? He re- 
plied that it had not, and that he was "wait- 
ing until it was all paid." I asked him if Mr. 
Sinithson's notes were entered in our books? 
He answered me that they were not. He did 
not say he was "waiting until they were all 
paid." I reported the facts to the Book Com- 
mittee, and requested an examination. Instead 
of giving any attention to my report, they re- 
ferred it to Dr. Carlton. 

The Eev. A. W. Wilson and Mr. T. J. Magru- 
der of the Church South, appeared before the 
Committee, and gave explanations of the debt, 
and assurances that it would be paid, something 
I had never doubted. Immediately after Messrs. 
Wilson and Magruder left the Committee, Dr. 
Carlton was heard to say to the latter, "Thank 
God, Magruder, for what you have done for me 
to-day. You have done me the greatest service 
in the world. Lanahan is now completely down, 
and we will keep him down. A resolution will 
be offered in the Committee exonerating me 
from all blame and it will pass." This was not 
the only instance in which he knew what the 
Committee would do before it was done. A 



APPENDIX I. 285 

majority of them were truly his obedient serv- 
ants — always ready to do, or not to do, what- 
ever was agreeable to him. Fortunately he put 
in writing withont date, the following explana- 
tion of the above transaction: 

To the Book Committee: 

Dear Brethren.— Some time during the year 1858 or 1859 
Dr. Sehon, Secretary of the Missionary Society of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, called on us to ascertain 
how we made our remittances to China for the support of 
our missionaries in that country. We informed him that 
we procured letters of credit from Brown Brothers & Co., 
of this city, on Brown, Shipley & Co., London, and that 
upon these letters our missionaries could draw from time 
to time, as they might need money for their support, until 
the amount of the letters should be exhausted. 

On December 7, 1859, Dr. Sehon returned to the city, 
visited Brown Brothers & Co., and on application to them 
for letters of credit on which their missionaries might 
draw for their salaries, was informed that they would grant 
their request, provided they would procure the endorsement 
of the Methodist Book Concern, as the Missionary Society 
here had been accustomed to do for many years. A letter 
of credit was issued, and Dr. Sehon came to the Book 
Concern and requested the Book Agents to become sureties 
for the payment of the drafts that might be drawn on said 
letters of credit until the amount was exhausted. 

The Agents having been for many years sureties for the 
Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church did 
not see how they could consistently refuse this act of 
brotherly kindness to a Sister Church, especially as they 
were informed by the said Secretary that funds were iu 
hand to meet all drafts that might be drawn on the said 
letters of credit, and that the onlj^ object was to get them 
to China. Under these circumstances, and in view of the 
sacredness of the cause to be benefited by this act of 
courtesy, and a feeling that there was not the least hazard 
in the matter, the Agents did become sureties for the pay- 
ment of this, and one or two other letters, and up to the 
time that all mail facilities between New York and Nash- 



28G APPENDIX I. 

ville were by the late war suspended, every draft was 
promptly paid, and no doubt but all other drafts would 
have been so promptly met but for the afore-mentioned 
circumstances. 

On the 18th of December, 1862, the amount for which the 
Book Concern was responsible, by the advance of the price 
of gold and exchange, was $20,G07.8G. Under the then ex- 
isting circumstances, your Agents, as they had the money, 
judged it best to settle up the matter and accordingly paid 
the above-named amount. 

Subsequently to the close of the war, the said Missionary 
Society, by a committee appointed for the purpose, came 
to New York and settled up the account of principal and 
interest, on which there has been paid $7,301.18, and but 
for the loss of the money that was forwarded to meet one 
of the notes of $11,000.00, the large portion of the debt 
would have been paid and the whole matter settled by the 
first of April next. 

The Agents honestly believed that in view of the large 
trade the Concern was having with the South at the time, 
and the friendly feeling that was constantly on the increase 
toward the Book Concern, that by refusing this friendly 
act they would do harm to the interests of the Concern. 
We may have erred in judgment, but we acted as we 
judged best at the time; and now, brethren, we submit the 
matter to you. 

(Signed) THOMAS CARLTON, 

JAMES PORTER, 

Agents. 

This remarkable letter suggests several ques- 
tions : 

1. As Dr. Porter's connection with the Book Concern had 
ended nearly two years before the letter was written, is it 
at all probable that he signed it as one of the "Agents"? 
I never believed that he ever saw the letter, or had any 
knowledge of the transaction to which it related. The facts 
prove the latter, at least. 

2. Was Dr. Sehon so uninformed that he had to go from 
his office in Nashville, Tennessee, to the Book Concern, at 
New York, to learn how to send money to missionaries in 



APPENDIX I. 287 

China? He was not a novice in such matters. That was 
not the first time he had arranged to send money to mis- 
sionaries in China. 

3. If " funds were in hand to meet the drafts that might 
be drawn," would not their deposit with Brown Brothers 
have been better than any other security, and could not 
the matter have been arranged through any bank in Nash- 
ville, and thus obviate the necessity of Dr. Sehon going 
to New York " to ascertain how we made our remittances 
to China for the support of our missionaries "? 

The facts are in direct conflict with the state- 
ments of the letter. The loan was not made 
"December 7, 1859," but in December, 1862, 
when the war was raging between the North 
and the South. As to " the large trade the Con- 
cern was haying with the South at that time, 
and the friendly feeling that was constantly on 
the increase toward the Book Concern," I need 
say nothing. But "in view of the sacredness 
of the cause" that was "benefited," and the 
more sacred dnty of the Agents (Agent) to make 
truthful reports to the Church of the use made 
of its property, was it not a breach of trust to 
allow two General Conferences to pass and no 
report of, nor even allusion to the transaction 
be made? Not only so, but two former Book 
Committees knew not of it. And the famous 
one that tried to cover me with odium, kne^v 
nothing about it, until I brought it before them. 
But this is not all — when the loan was made, 
in 1802, notes were given — not to "Carlton and 
Porter, Agents," — but to Thomas Carlton; and 
that the Church South regarded it as a personal 
loan from Dr. Carlton, is made evident by the 



288 APPENDIX I. 

following letter from the Treasurer of the Mis- 
sionary Society of that Church: 

Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 2, 1872. 
Rev. Thomas Carlton, D. D.: 

Dear Brother.— It affords me pleasure to inform you that 
I paid this morning the balance due you by the Board of 
Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, for 
money advanced by you for our Missions in China several 
years ago. ... I cannot close this letter without returning 
you our sincere thanks for your great kindness for pro- 
tecting our China Mission at a time when it was beyond 
our power to do so; and for the long and patient forbearance 
you have shown in reference to the refunding of the money 
on our part. Yours truly, 

A. H. REDFORD, Treasurer. 

Not a word of thanks to Carlton and Porter, 
Agents, of the Book Concern; nor to the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, whose money was loaned. 
Why? Because Dr. Bedford supposed the debt 
of gratitude was due to Dr. Carlton alone, "for 
the great kindness" he had shown by loaning 
the money out of his own large fortune, accumu- 
lated during his Agency in the Book Concern. 

One of the Bishops of the Southern Church, 
when appealing to the Kentucky Conference, 
then in session at Covington, Ky., in 1872, to 
assist in raising the money, stated that it was 
" a debt of honor due a friend in New York, who 
advanced the money during the late war." Was 
that in "December, 1859?" 

I have narrated the particulars of this case for 
several reasons, among them the following: 

1st. To show how the Committee received and treated the 
grave matters I officially presented. The above case they 



APPENDIX I. 289 

referred to Dr. Carlton, the person implicated, and his letter 
was pronounced satisfactory, and his act was approved 
without asking him a single question. This they called 
" examining." So in the cases of Goodenough and Hoff- 
man, their denials of their falsehoods and thefts had more 
weight than my presentation of facts corroborated by 
numerous respectable witnesses. 

2d. To show how the official press was used to pervert 
facts, mislead the Church and damage me. In the preced- 
ing part of this narrative, I have stated that the Book Com- 
mittee requested me to furnish a synopsis of the long 
report I had presented at their first meeting. As they had 
not even looked at that report, I had the synopsis printed 
and gave each member of the Committee a copy, hoping 
they would examine the facts I referred to as evidence of 
my statements, but they did not. 

The following is what the synopsis said of the 
above transaction: 

In my investigation thus far, I have made but a limited 
examination of the general account-books of the office; but 
in the examination made, I have discovered several entries 
to which, in my opinion, the attention of the Committee 
should be called. 
One entry is as follows: 

Brown Brothers & Co. to Carlton & Porter: 

December 9, 1861, to cash $15,400 

July 31, 18G2, to cash 3,000 

October 21, 18G2, to cash 2,500 



$20,900 

December 31, 1862, by cash $292.14 

Jan. 1, 1863, by profit and loss. . $20,607.86 = $20,900 

It is well known that the house of Brown Brothers & Co. 
is one of the wealthiest in New York. Such an entry was 
therefore more than improper. 

I have learned from Dr. Carlton that the Agents of the 
Book Concern guaranteed letters of credit from Brown 
Brothers & Co. in favor of the Missionary Society of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, which they had to pay, 



290 APPENDIX I. 

yet it does not appear that any charge is made upon the 
books of the Concern to the proper representative or officers 
of that Society, but the amount is charged to Brown Broth- 
ers & Co. in 1862, and in 18G3 charged off to profit and loss, 
where it has stood for about seven years. 

March 16, 1868, Mr. Smithson, Treasurer of the Mission- 
ary Society of the Church South, gave his notes for the 
aggregate sum, yet no record of these notes appear on 
the books of the Concern. In March, 1869, $1,300 was paid 
on these notes, but of that payment no entry was made, 
nor has any report of these matters been given to the Book 
Committee, or appeared in any exhibit made to the Church. 

March 10, 1870, tlie Christian Advocate repub- 
lished a long editorial from the Western Advo- 
cate, headed "Dr. Lanahan's Statement." The 
Western garbled the above by quoting only 
these words : " It is well known that the house 
of Brown Brothers & Co. is one of the wealthiest 
in New York. Such an entry was, therefore, 
more than improper." After charging me with 
intending to " deceive the reader " of my synop- 
sis, the Western said: 

What will the reader think, when told that the writer 
and every member of the Committee knew perfectly well 
that the wealth of Brown Brothers had nothing to do 
with the transaction whatever? Brown Brothers were, the 
bankers of certain parties in the South who did business 
with the Book Concern through the bank, and who fell in 
debt to the Concern at the beginning of the war. As the 
war advanced, all communication with the South was cut 
off, and it looked to the Agents as if the claim was lost. 
In closing the books for the year, they charged the amount 
to profit and loss, and credited the bank, and the book- 
keeper, now dead, omitted to make a full explanation of 
the transaction, indicating the parties doing business 
through the bank. This is all there is in the case. 

We give the above as an example of the character of the 
document and of the explanation that came to the Com- 



APPENDIX I. 291 

niittee. We know nothing of the intention of the authorities 
in the case, but if the Book Committee does not take prompt 
action to vindicate itself, and to ascertain where the re- 
sponsibility for the publication of this mischievous docu- 
ment lies, our confidence in its watchfulness of the interests 
of the Church will be greatly diminished. 

Could a more misleading statement have been 
made? As to "the responsibility for the pub- 
lication of the mischievous document," there was 
no difficulty in ascertaining that, as it was sign- 
ed "J. Lanahan," and had been officially laid 
before the Book Committee. The evident pur- 
pose of the Western Advocate was to make the 
impression that it had been anonymously pub- 
lished. If that paper had given its readers the 
above brief extract from " the mischievous docu- 
ment/' they could have judged of the propriety 
of my laying it before the Committee. It had 
published Goodenough\s long denial of the 
frauds he had committed, and a long statement 
from his attorneys in the civil suit, but not a 
word from me, except the above garbled state- 
ment with those misleading comments. 

But this is not all — the Western not only per- 
verted the facts in regard to Brown Brothers, 
but also in regard to "the book-keeper, now 
dead," who manifestly made the entry in the 
ledger, by the direction of the Agents (Agent), 
and made it as I have given it. The book-keep- 
er, Mi-. J. B. Edwards, died April 10th, 1862 
(see Christian Advocate, April 17, 1802, for an 
account of his funeral). Here is additional evi- 
dence that the loan w;is made in 1S62, and not 



292 APPENDIX I. 

in " 1859," as stated in Dr. Carlton's letter. Was 
the Book Concern "then having a large trade 
with the South"? 

Thus it appears that $20,900 was taken out 
of the funds of the Book Concern and kept out 
seven years without the knowledge of three 
Book Committees, and two General Conferences 
which intervened. 

One other remark is needed. Bepresentatives 
of the Church South were told that my com- 
plaint about the loan of the f 20,900, was because 
it was to their Church, and that I alleged that 
the money was used in Missouri and Southern 
Kansas. I said not a word about that Church, 
nor about the use made of the money, except 
that the loan was made to it through its repre- 
sentative, Bev. Dr. Sehon and improperly enter- 
ed in the accounts of the Book Concern, as due 
from Brown Brothers & Co., and then charged 
off as a loss, and that no report of the transac- 
tion had ever been made to any authority, or 
representative of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. In that, as in all other matters, I con- 
fined myself strictly to what belonged to my 
duties as a trusted officer and servant of my 
Church. 



APPENDIX II. 

ACTION OF THE BALTIMORE CONFER- 
ENCE AND DR. SLICER'S ACCOUNT OF 
THE CONDUCT OF THE BOOK 
COMMITTEE. 

The Baltimore Annual Conference met in 
Frederick, Md., March 1, 1870. Advance copies 
of the Christian Advocate were sent to the Con- 
ference, in which was the following editorial, 
double leaded. The Editor, Dr. Daniel Curry, 
subsequently stated to the Book Committee that 
it was written by his Assistant, W. H. DePuy, 
and that he had "not reproved him for writing 
it." But for it the Book Room controversy would 
not have been referred to in the Conference: 

BOOK CONCERN AFFAIRS— CAUTION. 

We have before us in " fly-sheet " form a printed document 
signed " J. Lanahan," purporting to be a " Statement to 
the Book Committee " at its recent session. The document, 
with some material modifications, appeared in the Baltimore 
American* of last week, and extra copies of that paper con- 
taining it, we are informed, were scattered abroad. Vigor- 
ous efforts, we presume, are to be made to send the incen- 
diary document over the whole country. The motive and 
purpose of the persons engaged in this infamous business 
are apparent. We may refer to them hereafter. We men- 

* The statement that it appeared in the Baltimore American or 
any other paper is absolutely false. 

293 



294 APPENDIX II. 

tion the matter now to caution our readers and the public 
generally against placing any confidence in the damaging 
allegations therein contained. They were all before the 
Book Committee, thoroughly traversed, and found to be 
groundless. 

Upon the arrival of the Christian Advocate, I 
moved a reconsideration of the passage of my 
character and the reference of it and the above 
to a committee, which was done. After refer- 
ring to the fact that the Book Committee had 
made two reports to the Church, and the further 
fact that a dissenting report had been made by 
a minority of said Committee, the Committee 
thus appointed say: 

Your committee also think that, whatever may be the 
final decision, it must be evident that a state of facts which 
justified the November declaration of " great mismanage- 
ment " and " serious losses " certainly justified the Junior 
Agent in pushing his investigations. If there were grounds 
for that judgment, the duty of the Book Agents was mani- 
fest; there could be no justification for a neglect to make 
an examination thorough, searching and sifting. The ma- 
jority report refer the examinations and the demand for 
rigid scrutiny to the Assistant Agent. They say: " The 
Assistant Agent had felt it to be his duty to look into the 
affairs of the Concern, and had come to entertain appre- 
hensions that there had existed frauds resulting in heavy 
losses." We believe the Church will, for this vigilance and 
zeal on the part of the Junior Agent, hold him in grateful 
remembrance and high appreciation. 

The conclusions of the majority report are not only in 
opposition to those of the November report, in several vital 
points, but are in direct conflict with the conclusions of the 
minority report. The majority report gives no evidence. 
It assumes that it did examine all the testimony carefully, 
and presents its conclusions, but withholds the testimony. 
It does not even give an outline of the evidence, but states 
that its conclusions were reached " after two weeks of 



appendix n. 295 

thorough search for truth." This is not questioned by us. 
nor do we discredit the integrity or ability of those reverend 
brethren; but we are compelled to say that their conclusions 
are insufficient without evidence. 

At this point we turn to the minority report. This dis- 
sents from the positions of the majority. With the same 
facts and testimony before them, the signers of the minority 
report declare that nothing has been offered relieving their 
convictions of losses and mismanagement as set forth in 
the November report. 

They declare that the evidence convinced them that the 
system of purchasing supplies was discreditable and dam- 
aging. They present testimony which seems to be strong 
and entitled to great weight. They affirm that sufficient 
rebutting testimony was not offered to set aside the evi- 
dence above named. They declare their deliberate judg- 
ment that losses very serious have occurred, and that mis- 
management has existed. 

The majority report does not impeach the testimony 
offered by the minority. It says in the supplementary reso- 
lutions that the " letters and allegations are by no means 
full, and are, therefore, inconclusive"; but what of them 
as far as they do testify? It says they were "traversed," 
but does not say they were disproved. 

The minority report gives us an outline of the testimony 
upon which it relies; the majority asks us to simply accept 
its conclusions, and that solely upon faith in its judgment. 
The matter is too grave for that, especially when its judg- 
ment differs so widely in November and February. In the 
name of the Church, in the name of our honored Book 
Concern, we ask for the facts as they are presented in 
evidence. We ask entire frankness, and believe conceal- 
ment a mistake of the gravest character. 

We know full well that in conducting the business of so 
large an establishment, with so many departments and 
employees, it is not possible to prevent all irregularities; 
but an irreparable damage will be done if the Church, or 
any considerable part of it, shall believe that " great mis- 
management" exists and is concealed. Indeed, the credit 
of our great Publishing House is gone hopelessly in the 
hour 11 i.i l the Church believes that one of her own chosen 
officers encounters obstruction in official investigations he 
attempts to make. 



296 APPENDIX II. 

In conclusion, we offer the following resolutions: 

1. Resolved, That in our judgment, the doubt and dis- 
satisfaction of the Church cannot be removed until the 
Church is put in possession of the facts as shown in the 
testimony. 

2. Resolved, That in view of conflicting statements which 
have been given to the Church and the public from the 
Book Committee in the reports heretofore published, there- 
fore, we recommend a thorough examination, by commis- 
sion or otherwise, in advance of the General Conference, 
if possible; if not before, then under its direction, and that 
such investigation shall extend at least over the time cov- 
ered by the " consolidated exhibit " contained in the " ex- 
hibit of the Methodist Book Concerns," which follows the 
" annual report of the Book Committee." 

3. Resolved, That the thanks of the Church are due the 
minority of the Book Committee for respecting the call of 
the Church for facts, and also for asserting the right of the 
minority to report to the Conferences, and thus giving an 
additional guarantee to the Church for the future integrity, 
economy and safety of our great publishing interest. 

Resolved, That having carefully investigated the facts 
connected with the publication of the " statement to the 
Book Committee," made by Rev. John Lanahan, D. D., 
Assistant Book Agent at New York, we find nothing to 
implicate his moral or ministerial character, and therefore 
do now recommend that his character pass. 

T. M. EDDY, Chairman. 
JOS. B. STITT, Secretary. 
W. B. EDWARDS, 
GEO. HILDT, 
L. F. MORGAN, 
B. P. BROWN, 
A. R. REILEY. 

Upon the presentation of the report, a part 
of which is given above, I addressed the Con- 
ference and was followed by Dr. Henry Slicer, 
whose remarks were reported in the Baltimore 
American. Addressing the chair, he said: 

A few words, sir, with regard to the manner in which the 
minority report got into the secular press. When we had 



APPENDIX H. 297 

presented our report, and it had been rejected, we held a 
meeting and concluded not to throw it before the public 
through the secular press, but through the first occurring 
Annual Conference. Next morning, sir, I came out of my 
room into the study of Mr. Daniel Drew, with whom I 
lodged, and he handed me the New York Tribune, saying, 
" Here is the report of the majority of the Book Committee." 
I thought it was no time, sir, to mince matters when the 
majority could not even wait for the official paper, and I 
sent word to Bro. Vernon, the Secretary, who had the 
minority report, that he should give it at once to the secular 
press. "Will you take the responsibility?" said he. I an- 
swered, " Yes, sir; these gentlemen are in hot haste to 
employ the secular press against the minority, and they 
shall have their fill of it. If there is anything wrong in the 
minority report being published in the secular press, just 
put it upon my head, I can stand it." Never in my life, sir, 
did I stop to ask, " What is popular? " I ask, What is 
right? and when I see the right, I will do it, though the 
heavens fall. So have I acted in this matter, and so shall 
I continue to act, in the firm conviction that tne Church will 
demand that these wrongs be righted. 

I found myself compelled, Mr. Chairman, to be in New 
York in the month of February, against my judgment, to 
renew an investigation over which two weeks had been 
spent last November, at large expense to the Church and 
great inconvenience to the work. Two members of that 
Committee, with myself, Drs. Pike and Vernon, thought it 
our conscientious duty to reiterate in February what we 
had said in November, and not to stultify ourselves before 
the Church and the American people. 

The Book Committee required Dr. Lanahan to make his 
communications in writing, and although he complied, the 
Senior Agent, Dr. Carlton, although required to do the 
same, never furnished an item, but when the overwhelming 
statement of Dr. Lanahan was read, got up and said that 
he had no written statement, and could not refute the 
statements of his colleague. The truth is, he was over- 
whelmed, as were the members of the Committee, by the 
startling facts presented and the evidence sustaining them. 
Now, sir, what do we see? The editor of an official paper 
throwing his iron flail at one of the publishers of the paper, 
the Junior Agent, and attempting to put down the minority 



298 APrENDix ii. 

of the Committee who honestly spoke of their sentiments 
to the Church. It is about time, sir, that the editors were 
taught that they are not the proprietors of the General 
Conference papers, but simply the servants of the Church. 

It is represented to the country that the Book Committee 
accepted the report of the minority, which is contrary to 
the truth, for they rejected it by a vote of eight to four; 
and afterwards, when they proposed to reconsider it, I just 
reached my hand to the Secretary's table and put the report 
in my breast pocket. Finding they were in a trap, " Mr. 
Chairman," said one, " I move a reconsideration of the vote 
in order to have the document sealed up with the rest of 
the papers and sent forward to the General Conference." 
I saw then that they wanted to get by the day of judg- 
ment; and after they had shown their hand, 1 got up and 
said: "Mr. Chairman, I hardly think it worth while for 
brethren to spend their time in reconsidering what is not 
before them. You had a paper before you, but you kicked 
it out, and I now give you notice that you will meet it at 
the Annual Conferences." 

I had tried, sir, in every possible way to get in the 
minority report, and said: " You will certainly, as Christian 
gentlemen, extend the same courtesy to us that the Supreme 
Court extends to a minority of that body." But I had just 
as well whistled to a whirlwind or talked to a tornado. 
The minority were treated in this unfair manner all through 
the examination; but as I had gone there against my wishes, 
I determined to stay and see the end, regardless of the 
wrongs I witnessed. And now, sir, I do not hesitate to say, 
that if you fail to put the mark of this Conference upon 
the proceedings in this case, and upon the editors of this 
paper (the Christian Advocate), no man who goes hereafter 
to that Book Concern will dare to unearth any amount of 
defalcation and fraud that may occur, though it be as 
black as night. 

If you do not intend to stand by a conference member in 
this affair, you need not expect that any man will have 
backbone enough, in the responsible position of Book Agent, 
to reveal any amount of wickedness and wrong that may 
come to his knowledge. Why, sir, after the adoption of 
the majority report, the committee did solemnly, upon the 
motion of one of its members, adopt a resolution— by the 



APPENDIX II. 299 

same vote that passed the majority report — declaring that 
hereafter no investigation should be permitted which ex- 
tended back of the first day of December, 1869; so that 
what they did see, they glossed over; and what they did 
not see, they covered up. What does such action mean? 

Question by Rev. B. P. Brown. — Was there a single mem- 
ber of the Committee representing the minority placed upon 
the Sub-committee to draft the report to the Annual Con- 
ferences ? 

Answer.— Not one; nor on the Committee to draft the 
report to General Conference. The minority were treated 
as if they had no rights in the Committee. When the lawyer 
was brought in (E. L. Fancher), Bro. Pike, of the New 
Hampshire Conference, and myself entered a written pro- 
test against his coming, but it amounted to nothing. Some 
of the Committee seemed more anxious to get the Assistant 
Agent out of the way by suspending him, than they were 
to investigate the facts which he laid before them. I hope 
never to witness a repetition of the scenes enacted in that 
Committee. 

Commenting on the endorsement of my char- 
acter by the Baltimore Conference, the Christian 
Advocate said: "To an uninformed looker-on 
the action was calculated to suggest the suspi- 
cion that somebody's conduct stood in need of 
defense, just as the use of felt and pitch implies 
that the house roof stands in need of patching." 
The editor was not present at the Conference, 
but his readers would infer that he was. If only 
a tithe of what the Advocate and the Book Com- 
mittee said and did were true, my character 
needed vastly more than "patching." 

The action of the Conference also stirred anew 
the indignation of Rev. B. F. Kawlings, Chair- 
man of the Book Committee, avIio published in 
the Indianapolis Daily Journal, the following, 



300 APPENDIX II. 

which some called " A Proclamation of commen- 
dation to the New York Preachers' Meeting, and 
of warning to all dissentients : " 

Indianapolis, March 17th, 1870. 
To the New York Preachers' Meeting: 

Brethren.— The action of the New York Preachers' Meet- 
ing on the Book Concern and Book Committee has gone 
over all the country, and will have a salutary effect, as the 
utterance of men on the ground, and who know somewhat 
whereof they speak. 

The action of the Baltimore Conference is unexampled 
in Methodist history, and ought to be branded as infamous, 
as it doubtless will be, throughout our connection. 

It seems to me it is time now to hold men to account, 
particularly Methodist preachers, who persist in slandering 
the Concern— no difference who they are, nor what position 
they hold. 

Because some man or men have attempted to blast the 
Concern, and ignominiously failed, shall the Annual Con- 
ferences pass resolutions of condolence? Shame! shame! 
Yours truly, B. F. RAWLINGS. 

Does not the above look like an attempt to 
institute a reign of terror? I was told at the 
time that the New York Preachers' Meeting- 
adopted a resolution of censure upon me, and 
that the person; who offered it said: "Lanahan 
must be crushed out for slandering the Book 
Concern." Certainly no means were left untried 
except physical torture. I judge there is a tor- 
ture severer than physical — one that leaves a 
scar without a wound. Such scar I have carried 
in silence more than twenty years, and unless 
the Church shall compel an honest investigation 
of the long continued frauds in her publishing 
house — if permitted, I will show that scar before 
the throne of God. 



APPENDIX n. 301 

The Methodist, of New York, an unofficial 
paper, owned by some of the chiefest laymen of 
Methodism, and edited by Bey. Dr. Geo. E, 
Crooks, now professor in Drew Theological 
Seminary, said of the " Bawlings Proclamation : " 

From various sources which are entitled to credit, we 
learn that the " Methodist preachers " who are to be held 
to account for their opinion of the management of the 
Book Concern, " no difference what position they hold," 
are the bishops. The Chairman also takes it upon him to 
" brand " the proceedings of an Annual Conference as 
11 infamous." This is something new in Methodist history; 
it is decidedly autocratic. The Baltimore Conference 
adopted a temperate report asserting the right of the mi- 
nority of the Book Committee to declare their opinion of 
the condition of the Book Concern to the Church. They 
also adopted resolutions refusing to send their Sunday- 
school collections to the present Treasurer of the Sunday- 
School Union (S. J. Goodenough). These may or may not 
have been judicious, but were clearly within their right. 
It is the prerogative of the people who give money to 
charitable uses to have something to say about disbursing 
agents. 

Are we to understand that the Book Committee will try 
an Annual Conference? Will they arraign bishops? Will 
they suppress the minority of their associates? Is it within 
tne province of the chairman to apprise bishops that if the 
Committee meet again, episcopal conduct may be inquired 
into? Will they suppress liberty of thought and speech? 
If they can do all this, we have indeed fallen upon evil 
times, and Methodists may well ask to what we are coming. 

The above is further evidence that the con- 
spiracy against the Bishops was a matter of 
public notoriety. For demanding a fair and full 
investigation of the charges of mismanagement 
and fraud, Dr. Crooks was also bitterly assailed 
and he was held up to public reproach, as an 
enemy of the Book Concern, and an effort was 



302 APrENDIX II. 

made — which utterly failed — to have him re- 
moved from his editorial chair. The whole 
Church owes him a debt of gratitude of which 
it has uo couceptiou. His noble defense of the 
truth has made his very name to me "as oint- 
ment poured forth," and sweet as the breath 
of a rose. 



APPENDIX III. 

A QUESTION AXSWEKED. 

I have frequently been asked how the Book 
Concern could stand the great and long con- 
tinued losses I have estimated to have resulted 
from mismanagement and frauds, and at the 
same time add to its capital, pay the salaries 
of the Bishops, General Conference appropria- 
tions, dividends to Annual Conferences, defici- 
encies in General Conference expenses, etc., etc? 
In answering these questions, several important 
matters must be kept in mind. Among them, 
that one-third of the expenses of the Bishops 
and deficiencies of General Conference expenses 
were paid by the Western Book Concern. Also, 
that the Concern had a complete monopoly of 
a valuable class of books, several periodicals 
of large circulation, a permanent and large 
denominational patronage, and open access to 
the general public in common with other pub- 
lishing houses. In addition to the above, the 
buildings and equipments were all free of debt, 
and there w;is always money in hand to purchase 
supplies at the lowest market price. Did ever 
another publishing lionse possess superior, if 
equal, advantages? 

303 



304 APPENDIX III. 

Notwithstanding all these great advantages, 
the figures show that a very small sum was paid 
for the purposes named iu comparison with the 
amount of capital invested. The profit and loss 
account, the items of which I give in detail at 
the end of this statement, shows that during 
the ten years, from 1859 to 1868, inclusive, a 
total of |220,531.64 was paid for all Church pur- 
poses. This is an average of $22,053.16 per year. 
The ledger shows the average amount of capital 
to have been $658,658.83. Thus, the amount 
paid for Church purposes — expenses of Bishops, 
dividends to Annual Conferences, etc., etc., was 
only three and a half per cent on the capital 
invested. But it inay be asked, was not the 
capital largely increased during these ten years? 
According to the ledger, the increase was $44,- 
923.49, which was an average of $4,091.49 per 
year. That would be three-fifths of one per cent, 
added to the capital. This added to the above 
three and a half per cent, shows the entire pro- 
fits in those years to have been four and one 
tenth per cent. 

But this is not all — in addition to the facts 
thus stated, an examination shows that the capi- 
tal stock on the ledger was made to strangely 
fluctuate from year to year, rising and falling, 
losing and gaining, to suit peculiar and unex- 
plained emergencies. In some years, the exhib- 
its, as already shown, reported an increase of 
the capital and the ledger showed a loss. In 
January, 1861, the exhibit to the Conferences 



APPENDIX III. 305 

shows $30,903.08 added to the capital. The 
ledger shows that there was nothing added. 

The profit and loss account ought to and I 
suppose does give all the payments for Church 
purposes ordered by the General Conference in 
the ten years specified. In the following, I give 
every item found in that account that could 
apply to those purposes: 

1859— General Conference Appropr's . . $361.40 
Salaries of Bishops 6,056.19 

$6,417.59 

1860— Salaries of Bishops 1,020.61 

General Conference Appropr's. . 3,191.70 

4,212.31 

1861— Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Salaries of Bishops 9,935.25 

General Conference Appropr's. . 4,404.72 

Salaries of Bishops (again) 5,346.67 

General Conference Appropr's. . 1,333.34 

21,719.98 

1862— Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

General Conference Appropr's. . 2,054.00 
Salaries of Bishops 9,801.15 

12,555.15 



300 APrENDix in. 

1863— Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Heddiug) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Heading) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Dividends to Conferences 19,600.00 

Salaries of Bishops 12,311.56 

General Conference Appropr's. . 2,254.93 

34,691.49 

1864— Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 175.00 

Lucy Hedding (widow of Bishop 

Hedding) 58.00 

Dividends to Conferences 20,400.00 

Delegate Account 2,564.98 

Salaries of Bishops 11,173.65 

General Conference Appropr's. . 2,287.66 
Wives of Bishops (widows) 1,100.00 

37,934.29 

1865— Dividends to Conferences 400.00 

General Conference Appropr's. . 2,602.23 

Salaries of Bishops 21,765.58 

Wives of Bishops (widows) 100.00 

24,867.81 

1866— General Conference Appropr's. . 2,068.43 

Salaries of Bishops 25,375.69 

27,444.12 

1867— Salaries of Bishops 20,379.58 

General Conference Appropr's. . 2,333.10 
Daily Advocate ... 95.79 

22,808.47 

1868— Bishops' Traveling Expenses 1,007.02 

General Conference Appropr's. . 5,000.00 

Salaries of Bishops 17,800.00 

General Conference Expenses . . 4,073.41 

27,880.43 



Total appropriations for 10 years. ..$220,531.64 
Average per year paid by the Concern for 

all church purposes $22,053.16 



APPENDIX III. 307 

The foregoing tables show the amounts re- 
ceived by the Church from the Book Concern, 
in the years specified, which amounts, judging 
by the last twenty years, ought to have been 
manifold greater. 



